(PC) Bland v. Moffett ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JONAS B. FOSTER ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-01596 JLT SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING 13 v. ) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, AND ) DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT 14 TULARE COUNTY SHERIFF’S ) PREJUDICE DEPARTMENT, et al., ) 15 ) (Docs. 35, 36, 37, and 38) ) 16 Defendants. ) ) 17 18 Jonas B. Foster initiated this action seeking to hold the defendants liable for violating his civil 19 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants moved to dismiss the action pursuant to Rule 20 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Docs. 36, 36.) 21 On April 15, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge determined Plaintiff failed to prosecute the 22 matter and abandoned the litigation. (Doc. 38 at 3-5.) The magistrate judge noted Plaintiff failed to 23 appear for his properly noticed deposition and failed to provide the Court with a proper mailing 24 address following his parole, as required by Local Rule 183. (Id. at 4-5.) Therefore, the magistrate 25 judge recommended the motions be granted, and the matter be dismissed without prejudice. (Id. at 5.) 26 In addition, the magistrate judge recommended the pending motion for summary judgment be denied 27 as moot. (Id.) 28 All parties were granted 14 days to file any objections to the Findings and Recommendations. 1 || (Doc. 38 at 6.) In addition, the parties were informed that “failure to file objections within the 2 || specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (dd, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 3 || F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014); citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) 4 || Defendants did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. Although the Findings and 5 || Recommendations were served upon Plaintiff at the only known address, the document was returned 6 || as undeliverable to the Court on April 29, 2022. 7 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. 8 || Having carefully reviewed the entire action, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 9 || are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 10 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on April 15, 2022 (Doc. 38) are 11 ADOPTED in full. 12 2. Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Docs. 35, 36) are GRANTED. 13 3. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 37) is denied as MOOT. 14 4. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 15 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 16 17 ||IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 | Dated: _May 11, 2022 ( Li pA LU. wan 19 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28