Acevedo v. Russell Cellular, Inc.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARCO ACEVEDO, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-01440-JLT-SAB ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 13 v. ) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, ) DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE, RUSSELL CELLULAR, INC., ) AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ) CLOSE CASE 15 Defendant. ) ) (Docs. 42, 51) 16 ) 17 On May 16, 2022, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss this action for lack of prosecution and for Plaintiff’s failure to abide by the Court’s orders. (Doc. 42.) After no opposition to the motion was filed, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that Defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted and this action be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 51.) Those findings and recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 14 days after service. (Id. at 17.) In addition, Plaintiff was “advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). Plaintiff did not file any objections and the time to do so has now expired.

27 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, and in the absence of any objections, the Court | concludes that the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record | and proper analysis. Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 3 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on June 9, 2022, (Doc. 51), are 4 ADOPTED in full.

5 2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 42) is GRANTED.

6 3. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

7 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.

9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 Dated: _ June 27, 2022 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE