1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAICHUN XIONG, Case No. 1:24-cv-00802-KES-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 14 MERRICK B. GARLAND, et al., AND OBEY A COURT ORDER

15 Defendants. Doc. 18 16 17 On July 10, 2024, plaintiff Kaichun Xiong, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 18 initiated this action with the filing of a complaint for writ of mandamus against defendants Merrick 19 B. Garland, Alejandro Mayorkas, and Ur. M. Jaddou. Docs. 1, 3. This matter was referred to a 20 United States magistrate judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On December 19, 2024, defendants filed the pending motion to dismiss and served the 22 motion on plaintiff. Doc. 13. Plaintiff failed to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition 23 as required by Local Rule 230(c) (see Docket), and on January 14, 2025, defendants replied in 24 support of the pending motion.1 Doc. 15. On February 3, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge 25 1 Local Rule 230(c) provides: “Opposition, if any, to the granting of the motion shall be in 26 writing and shall be filed and served no later than fourteen (14) days after the motion was filed. A responding party who has no opposition to the granting of the motion shall serve and file a 27 statement to that effect, specifically designating the motion in question.” Local Rule 230(c). It further provides that “[a] failure to file a timely opposition may also be construed by the Court as 28 a nonopposition to the motion.”

1 || ordered plaintiff “‘to show cause . . . why sanctions should not be imposed for [plaintiff's] failure 2 comply with the Local Rules” or alternatively to “file an opposition or statement of non- 3 || opposition to the pending motion to dismiss” within 14 days of service of the order.2 Doc. 16. 4 || Plaintiff failed to file a response to the order to show cause, file an opposition or statement of non- 5 || opposition, or to otherwise communicate with the Court. 6 Therefore, on February 20, 2025, the magistrate judge issued findings and 7 || recommendations to “dismiss this action without prejudice for plaintiff's failure to prosecute this 8 || action and to comply with the Court’s orders and Local Rules.” Doc. 18 at 4. The findings and 9 || recommendations were served on plaintiff and notified him that any objections were due within 10 || 14 days.

. Plaintiff did not file any objections, and the time to do so has now passed. 11 Pursuant to

(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 12 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes that the findings and recommendations 13 || are supported by the record and proper analysis. 14 Accordingly, 15 1. The findings and recommendations issued February 20, 2025, Doc. 18, are 16 ADOPTED in full; 17 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for plaintiffs failure to prosecute and 18 failure to comply with the Court’s order and Local Rules; and 19 3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED terminate all pending motions and deadlines 20 and to close this case. 21 22 73 || IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 24 Dated: _ March 24, 2025 4h 35 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26 See Ghazali v. Moran,

(9th Cir. 1995) (affirming district court’s dismissal of a case 2g || for failure to oppose a motion to dismiss in violation of a Nevada local rule).