(PC) Easter v. Smith ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DERRYL RAY EASTER, Case No.: 1:21-cv-1227 JLT CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS THIS ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO 14 S. SMITH, et al., OBEY COURT ORDERS AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 15 Defendants. (Doc. 16) 16 17 Derryl Ray Easter seeks to hold the defendants liable for violations of his civil rights 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The magistrate judge reviewed the First Amended Complaint and 19 determined Plaintiff failed “to link or causally connect any specific Defendant with any action.” 20 (Doc. 14 at 6.) Thus, Plaintiff “failed to allege an Eighth Amendment claim against any named 21 Defendant.” (Id.) The Court directed Plaintiff to either file a second amended complaint or file a 22 notice of voluntary dismissal within 21 days of the date of service, which occurred on January 11, 23 2023. (Id.) Further, the magistrate judge advised Plaintiff that if he failed to comply with the 24 order, “the Court will recommend that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to 25 obey a court order and for failure to prosecute.” (Id. at 7, emphasis omitted.) Plaintiff failed to 26 file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the Court’s order. 27 On February 13, 2023, the magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to prosecute the matter and failed to obey the Court’s order. (Doc. 16.) The magistrate judge found factors set forth by 1 | the Ninth Circuit in Carey v. King, 856 F.2d1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) weighed in favor of the 2 | imposition of terminating sanctions. (/d. at 2-3.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended 3 | the action be dismissed without prejudice. Ud. at 3.) Plaintiff was granted 14 days to file any 4 | objections to the Findings and Recommendations and was informed the failure to file objections 5 | may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. (d. at 4, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 6 | 839 (th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) Plaintiff did not 7 | file any objections, and the time to do so has expired. 8 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court conducted a de novo review of this case. 9 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations to 10 || be supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 11 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on February 13, 2023 (Doc. 16) are 12 ADOPTED in full. 13 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 14 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 | Dated: _Mareh 9, 2023 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28