Gastelum v. Easiness LP ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FERNANDO GASTELUM, ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-00166-ADA-CDB ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN PART FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 13 v. ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S SECOND ) REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT 14 EASINESS LP, ) ) (ECF Nos. 17-18) 15 Defendant. ) ) 16 ) 17 Plaintiff Fernando Gastelum (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se in this action against Easiness 18 LP (“Defendant”). (ECF No. 1.) On June 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default against 19 Defendant. (ECF No. 9.) On July 28, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge found Plaintiff’s request for 20 entry of default did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). (ECF No. 14 at 3-4.) The 21 assigned magistrate judge recommended that Plaintiff’s request for entry of default be denied without 22 prejudice. (Id. at 4.) On September 1, 2022, the Court adopted in full the magistrate judge’s findings 23 and recommendations. (ECF No. 16.) 24 On September 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a second request for entry of default against Defendant 25 now at issue. (ECF No. 17.) On October 3, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge found Plaintiff’s 26 second request for entry of default again did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). 27 (ECF No. 18 at 5-6.) The assigned magistrate judge recommended that Plaintiff’s second request for 28 /// 1 || entry of default be denied without prejudice and Plaintiff be provided one more opportunity to reques 2 ||) for an entry of default judgment. (/d. at 6.) 3 The Court served the second findings and recommendations to Plaintiff by mail on October 3. 4 || 2022. It advised Plaintiff that any objections had to be filed within fourteen days after service and th: 5 || the “failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 6 || Court’s order.” (ECF No. 18 at 6 (citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014); 7 || Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) Plaintiff did not file objections or any othe 8 || response to the findings and recommendations, and the deadline to do so has expired. 9 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and Local Rule 304, this Court conducted a de novo 10 || review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, this Court concludes the findings an 11 recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 12 Accordingly, 13 1. The October 3, 2022, Findings and Recommendations are adopted in part as to the 14 magistrate judge’s recommendation Plaintiff's second request for entry of default be □□□□□ 15 without prejudice; and 16 2. Plaintiff shall be provided one more opportunity to request for an entry of default 17 judgment. If Plaintiff fails to properly serve Defendant by December 14, 2022, or files a 18 third deficient request for entry of default judgment, the Court will dismiss this case 19 without prejudice. 20 21 22 |!IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 Dated: _ December 7, 2022 24 UNITED $TATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28