Marquise Louis Drumwright v. C. Huckleberry, et al.
Marquise Louis Drumwright v. C. Huckleberry, et al.
Trial Court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARQUISE LOUIS DRUMWRIGHT, Case No.: 1:22-cv-01410 JLT SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO OBEY LOCAL RULES AND 14 C. HUCKLEBERRY, et al., FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
15 Defendants. (Doc. 52) 16 17 Marquise Louis Drumwright seeks to hold defendants liable for violations of his civil 18 rights pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 The magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations regarding Plaintiff’s failure 21 to prosecute the action and failure to comply with the Court’s Local Rules, specifically 22 concerning Plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court apprised of his current address. (Doc. 52.) The 23 magistrate judge found terminating sanctions were appropriate after considering the factors 24 identified by the Ninth Circuit in Carey v. King,
856 F.2d 1439, 1440(9th Cir. 1988). (Id. at 2-5.) 25 Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court dismiss the action without prejudice for 26 Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Local Rules and failure to prosecute. (Id. at 5-6.) 27 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 52 at 6.) The Court advised him that the “failure to 1 | file any objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal.” 2 | Ud., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler,
772 F.3d 834, 838-39(9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file 3 | objections, and the time to do so has passed. 4 According to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 5 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 6 || are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 7 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued September 2, 2025 (Doc. 52) are 8 ADOPTED in full. 9 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiffs failure to obey the Local 10 Rules and failure to prosecute. 11 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 12 B IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: _ September 22, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Reference
- Status
- Unknown