Ball v. Pilot Travel Centers LLC ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFF ALAN BALL, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-0256 JLT CDB ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN PART THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ) ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND ) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE 14 PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS, LLC, ) THE CASE ) 15 Defendant. ) (Doc. 29) ) 16 ) 17 Jeff Alan Ball seeks to hold the defendant liable for retaliation and violation of California’s 18 wage and hour laws. (See generally Doc. 5-1.) The magistrate judge found “Plaintiff has failed to 19 comply with this Court’s Local Rules and the Court’s orders, and in so doing is failing to prosecute his 20 case…” (Doc. 29 at 4.) The magistrate judge found terminating sanctions are appropriate after 21 considering the factors identified by the Ninth Circuit, and recommended the action be dismissed 22 without prejudice. (Id. at 2-4.) 23 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any 24 objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 29 at 4.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the “[f]ailure to 25 file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., quoting 26 Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the 27 time to do so has passed. 28 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 1 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the findings that Plaintiff failed to comply 2 || with the Court’s order and failed to prosecute the action following the withdrawal of his attorney are 3 || supported by the record and proper analysis. However, the magistrate judge did not identify the Loc 4 || Rule with which Plaintiff failed to comply in the Findings and Recommendations. Rather, the only 5 || Local Rule specifically referenced in the analysis relates to this Court’s authority to impose sanctions 6 || (See Doc. 29 at 2, citing Local Rule 110.) Given the lack of clarity, the Court declines to adopt the 7 || finding that Plaintiff failed to comply with the Local Rules. Nevertheless, the Court adopts the 8 || recommendation for dismissal for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court’s order and failure to 9 || prosecute following the withdrawal of his counsel. 10 Thus, the Court ORDERS: 11 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on August 27, 2024 (Doc. 29) are 12 ADOPTED in part. 13 2. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with 14 the Court’s order and failure to prosecute. 15 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 16 17 ||IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: _ September 16, 2024 ( LAW ph L. wan 19 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28