(PC) Fickenworth v. Cooper ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GARRISON THOMAS FICKENWORTH, No. 2:23-cv-00412-DJC-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JIM COOPER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, an inmate proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking 18 relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On August 8, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 21 herein which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any 22 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen 23 days. Plaintiff did not file objections to the findings and recommendations, but he 24 filed a notice stating that he did not receive either the court’s screening order (ECF 25 No. 5) or order to show cause (ECF No. 8). (See ECF No. 10.) In light of Plaintiff’s 26 response, the Magistrate Judge held his findings and recommendations in abeyance 27 and granted Plaintiff an additional thirty days to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 28 11.) The Magistrate Judge also directed the Clerk’s Office to send Plaintiff a courtesy 1 copy of his previous complaint. The courtesy copy sent by the Clerk’s Office was 2 returned as undeliverable on September 19, 2023 with the notation “Undeliverable, 3 Not here, “TEMP OUT.” Given the possibility that Plaintiff was temporarily relocated, 4 the undersigned issued another order to show cause (ECF No. 12), effectively giving 5 Plaintiff an additional 21 days to indicate he wished to prosecute this action. No 6 response to this second order to show cause has been received by the Court. 7 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 8 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law 9 are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) 10 (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the 11 district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds 12 the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper 13 analysis. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 8, 2023, are adopted in full; 16 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure 17 to comply with court orders for the reasons set forth in the July 5, 2023 order; and 18 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 19 Dated: December 29, 2023 /s/ Daniel J. Calabretta 20 THE HONORABLE DANIEL J. CALABRETTA 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28