Debbs v. Valley Convalscent Hospital ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EURAL DEBBS, SR., Case No. 1:22-cv-00248-AWI-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 VALLEY CONVALSCENT HOSPITAL, (Doc. 11) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Eural Debbs, Sr. (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action. 18 (Docs. 1-2, 5). On March 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (Doc. 4). 19 The Court screened Plaintiff’s FAC on March 21, 2022. (Doc. 6). The Court found Plaintiff’s 20 FAC failed to state a claim against any defendant and provided Plaintiff 30 days to file a Second 21 Amended Complaint (“SAC”) or notify the Court in writing that he wants to stand on his FAC. 22 Id. Plaintiff failed to respond within the provided 30 days. 23 On May 12, 2022, the Court issued an order to show cause why this action should not be 24 dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s orders. (Doc. 7). Plaintiff filed a response to the 25 order to show cause on June 3, 2022 (Doc. 8), and the Court issued an order discharging the order 26 to show cause (Doc. 9). Again, the Court provided Plaintiff 30 days to file a SAC or notify the 27 Court in writing that he wants to stand on his FAC. Id. at 13. Plaintiff failed to respond within 1 On October 19, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge found Plaintiff had failed to comply 2 | with a court order and failed to prosecute his case. (Doc. 11). The assigned magistrate judge 3 || recommended the action be dismissed without prejudice. Jd. The Court served the findings and 4 | recommendations on Plaintiff by mail on November 4, 2022. (Doc. 12). The findings and 5 || recommendations advised Plaintiff that he must file any objections within 14 days after service of 6 | the order and that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 7 | appeal the District Court’s order.” Jd. at 5 (citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th 8 | Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 9 On November 14, 2022, the Court received notice the findings and recommendations 10 || served on Plaintiff by mail were returned as undeliverable. (Doc. 12). On December 16, 2022, 11 | Plaintiff's address was updated pursuant to a notice of change of address filed in Debbs v. Dignity 12 | Health Hospital, Case No. 1:22-cv-00351-ADA-HBK. (Doc. 13). That same day, the Court re- 13 || served the findings and recommendations on Plaintiff by mail. /d. Plaintiff did not file 14 | objections or any other response to the findings and recommendations, and the deadline to do so 15 | has expired. 16 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and Local Rule 304, this Court conducted a de novo 17 | review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, this Court concludes the 18 | findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 20 1. The October 19, 2022, Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 11) are adopted in full; 21 2. Plaintiffs first amended complaint (Doc. 4) is dismissed without prejudice for failure to 22 prosecute and failure to comply with a court order; and 23 3. The Clerk of the Court be directed to close this case. 24 95 IT IS SO ORDERED. || Dated: _ January 11, 2023 _ i hha — SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28