UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. EDCV 25-2711 JGB (SKx) Date December 2, 2025 Title Deondre Raglin v. Dora Fanny Hanhan, et al.

Present: The Honorable JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MAYNOR GALVEZ Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present

Proceedings: Order DISMISSING Plaintiff’s Complaint for Failure to Comply with Court Orders (IN CHAMBERS) On October 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants Dora Fanny Hanhan, et al. (“Complaint,” Dkt. No. 1.) On November 19, 2025, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and ordered Plaintiff to file notice by December 1, 2025, indicating his intent to proceed with his case on the ADA claim alone, or voluntarily dismiss the action. (Dkt. No. 12.) In that order, the Court was clear that “failure to file notice by this deadline may be deemed consent to the dismissal of the action.” (Id. at 7.) As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not filed the required notice nor voluntarily dismissed his remaining claim. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) grants the Court authority to sua sponte dismiss actions for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Wolff v. California,

(C.D. Cal. 2016). Plaintiff has failed to file notice or voluntarily dismiss consistent with the Court’s orders, and thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to comply with court orders, warranting dismissal. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s action for failure to comply with court orders and DIRECTS the Clerk to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.