(PC) Bland v. Salazar ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA D. BLAND, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-1499 JLT EPG (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING THE 13 v. ) ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE ) 14 REUBEN A. SALAZAR II, ) (Docs. 69, 74) ) 15 Defendant. ) ) 16 17 Joshua Bland is a state prisoner and asserts his civil rights arising under the Fourteenth 18 Amendment were violated by Reuben A. Salazar II. (See Docs. 16, 32.) On February 14, 2022, 19 Plaintiff filed a “Notice to Withdraw from Prosecution of Action without Prejudice,” indicating he “no 20 longer wish[ed] to prosecute this action.” (Doc. 69 at 1.) 21 The magistrate judge construed the notice as a motion to voluntarily dismiss the action without 22 prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 74 at 1.) The 23 magistrate judge observed that Plaintiff no longer wanted to prosecute the case “due to emotional 24 distress and mental decay.” (Id. at 2; see also Doc. 69 at 1.) In addition, the magistrate judge noted 25 that “Defendant does not oppose Plaintiff’s request to withdraw from prosecution of this action 26 (without prejudice).” (Id.; see also Doc. 71.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the action 27 be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2). (Id. at 3.) 28 The parties were granted an opportunity to object to the Findings and Recommendations. 1 || (Doc. 74 at 3; Doc. 76 at 1-2.) The parties were also advised the “failure to file objections within the 2 || specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Doc. 74 at 3, citing Wilkerson v. 3 || Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 4 || 1991).) No party filed objections, and the deadline has passed. (See Doc. 76 at 2.) 5 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 6 || Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes the magistrate judge’s Findings and 7 || Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 8 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on March 22, 2022 (Doc. 74), are adopted 9 in full. 10 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 11 3. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 66) is terminated as MOOT. 12 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 13 14 IS SO ORDERED. 15 || Dated: _ June 3, 2022 ( Lin fi L. wan 16 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28