(PC) Hogue v. Sacramento Police Department ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN HOGUE, No. 2:17-cv-0434-MCE-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983 On January 7, 2020, the City of Sacramento filed a motion to compel, ECF No. 20 25, and on February 5, 2020, the City of Sacramento filed a motion to compel deposition or for 21 terminating sanctions, ECF No. 26. The time for acting passed, and plaintiff failed to file an 22 opposition or otherwise respond to either motion. 23 On February 14, 2020, and March 6, 2020, the court warned plaintiff that failure to 24 respond to the motions could result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. See Fed. 25 R. Civ. P. 41(b). The court also granted plaintiff a 21-day extension of time to respond to each 26 motion. ECF Nos. 27, 28. 27 The time for acting has once again passed and plaintiff has not filed an opposition, a 28 statement of no opposition, or otherwise responded to either of the court’s order. Plaintiff has 1 || disobeyed this court’s orders and failed to prosecute this action. The appropriate action is 2 || dismissal without prejudice. 3 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 4 || prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 6 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen days 7 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 8 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 9 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 10 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 11 || Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 12 || Dated: April 6, 2020. > 14 EDMUND F. BRENNAN 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28