(PC) Levi v. Hill ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GERIOLD B. LEVI, No. 2:19-cv-01162-TLN-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 J. CRAWFORD, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Geriold B. Levi (“Plaintiff”), who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules. 20 On December 15, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections 22 within the time specified therein. (ECF No. 35.) In response to the findings and 23 recommendations, in which the magistrate judge recommends granting Defendants J. Crawford 24 and Buchannan’s (collectively, “Defendants”) unopposed motion for terminating sanctions for 25 failure to comply with a prior order to provide discovery, Plaintiff filed an unsigned “Declaration 26 in Opposition to Re: Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions” along with unsigned and unverified 27 discovery responses. (See ECF No. 36.) Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff’s filing. (See 28 ECF No. 37.) 1 The Court finds Plaintiffs filing (ECF No. 36) fails to establish excusable neglect for 2 | Plaintiff's failure to timely serve discovery responses as ordered by the Court. Specifically, 3 | Plaintiff does not explain why he did not receive Defendants’ discovery requests prior to the 4 | original deadline for service of responses or prior to the deadline set by the Court to provide 5 | responses. (See id.) While Plaintiff states that he had trouble receiving mail due to housing 6 | issues, he does not specify any dates such that this Court could find the neglect excusable. 7 | Additionally, the late-provided discovery responses are unsigned and unverified and, in some 8 | instances, incomplete. Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff did not oppose Defendants’ original 9 | motion to compel, seek additional time to comply after the Court granted that motion, or oppose 10 | the pending motion for terminating sanctions. 11 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 12 | F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 13 | See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 14 The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 15 | supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed December 15, 2020 (ECF No. 35), are 18 | ADOPTED IN FULL; 19 2. Defendants’ unopposed Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 30) is GRANTED; 20 3. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure 21 || to comply with the Court’s rules and orders; and 22 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 | DATED: August 4, 2021 5 { J) /) 26 “ ! J Vu 27 Troy L. Nuhlep ] 28 United States District Judge