Decheri Hafer v. Unknown ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DECHERI HAFER, No. 1:20-cv-01426-NONE-JLT 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 13 v. DISMISS THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE 14 UNKNOWN, TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 15 Defendant. ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 16 ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE FOR PURPOSE OF CLOSING CASE AND THEN ENTER 17 JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE 18 19 (Doc. No. 13) 20 21 On September 24, 2020, the plaintiff filed in the Central District of California a document 22 titled “Ex Parte Motion to Transfer Case to U.S. District Court.” (Doc. No. 1.) On October 6, 23 2020, the Central District transferred the action to this court. (Doc. No. 4.) On October 13, 2020, 24 this court issued an order directing the plaintiff to file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis or 25 pay the filing fee. (Doc. No. 6.) After reviewing plaintiff’s application (Doc. No. 9), the court 26 granted plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on December 14, 2020. (Doc. No. 10). 27 Because plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to support her claims, the complaint was 28 dismissed with leave to amend. (Doc. No. 11.) On February 5, 2021, the court issued an order to 1 || show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the court’s order. 2 || (Doc. No. 12.) On February 24, 2021, the court issued findings and recommendations to dismiss 3 | the action without prejudice for plaintiff's failure to comply with the court’s order and failure to 4 || prosecute. (Doc. No. 13.) In addition, the plaintiff was “advised that failure to file objections 5 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.” (/d. at 4, 6 || citing Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 7 | (9th Cir. 2014).) To date, no objections have been filed and the time period for doing so has 8 || expired. 9 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley 10 || United School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this court conducted a de novo review of 11 | the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations 12 || are supported by the record and proper analysis. 13 Accordingly, the court ORDERS: 14 1. The findings and recommendations dated February 24, 2021 (Doc. No. 13) are 15 ADOPTED IN FULL; 16 2. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice; and 17 3. The clerk of court is DIRECTED to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose 18 of closing the case and then to ENTER JUDGMENT and close the case. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. ~ ‘ae 21 Dated: _ March 19, 2021 wae ye UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28