(PC) Mendez v. Stewart ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARLENE MENDEZ, et al., No. 2:19-cv-1810 KJM CKD P 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 STEWART, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On April 8, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 recommended plaintiff Baker be required to pay the filing fee in full. (ECF No. 4.) Both 22 plaintiffs were served with the findings and recommendations and both plaintiffs’ copies of the 23 findings and recommendations were returned by the postal service as undeliverable. After both 24 plaintiffs failed to file notices of change of address within the time provided by Local Rule 25 183(b), the magistrate judge filed additional findings and recommendations on June 30, 2020, 26 recommending this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 5.) 27 The findings and recommendations were served on both plaintiffs and contained notice to 28 plaintiffs that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within 1 fourteen days. These findings and recommendations also were returned as undeliverable. Neither 2 plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 3 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 4 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 5 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 6 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 7 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 8 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 30, 2020 (ECF No. 5), are adopted in 11 full; 12 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See L.R. 183(b); 13 and 14 3. The clerk of court is directed to close this case. 15 DATED: August 8, 2020. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28