1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ADAM RANDOLPH POWELL, No. 2:21-cv-0782 DJC AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 J. LYNCH, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42

. On May 22, 2025, defendants filed a motion to dismiss and served plaintiff via 19 mail. ECF No. 37. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), plaintiff had twenty-one days from the date of 20 service of the motion to file an opposition or statement of no opposition. However, plaintiff did 21 not file an opposition. 22 On July 22, 2025, the court informed plaintiff that pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), 23 “[f]ailure of the responding party to file an opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may 24 be deemed a waiver of any opposition to granting the motion and may result in the imposition of 25 sanctions.” ECF No. 163 at 1. Plaintiff was warned that “[s]anctions include dismissal for failure 26 to prosecute and for failure to comply with these rules and a court order.”

Good cause 27 appearing, the court ordered plaintiff to file and serve within twenty-one days from the date of the 28 filing of the order an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the defendants’ motion to 1 dismiss.

Plaintiff was further warned that “[f]ailure to comply with this order will result in a 2 recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant 3 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).”

. 4 On September 3, 2025, after the twenty-one-day period expired, and plaintiff had not filed 5 a response to the defendants’ motion to dismiss or otherwise responded to the court’s order, the 6 undersigned issued findings and recommendations recommending the action be dismissed 7 without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and defendants’ motion to 8 dismiss be terminated. ECF No. 39. Plaintiff was given fourteen days to file objections.

9 While the findings and recommendations were pending before the district judge, plaintiff filed a 10 motion for a fifteen-day extension of time to file an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss. 11 ECF No. 40. The undersigned withdrew the findings and recommendations and granted 12 plaintiff’s motion. ECF No. 41. Plaintiff was given until November 10, 2025, to file an 13 opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss.

. 14 Despite multiple opportunities to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition and 15 despite repeated warnings that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action 16 be dismissed, plaintiff has not filed a response to defendants’ motion to dismiss, which has been 17 pending for over six months. 18 In recommending this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, the court has 19 considered “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 20 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 21 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” Ferdik v. 22 Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). Because this case cannot 23 move forward without plaintiff’s participation, the court finds the factors weigh in favor of 24 dismissal. 25 //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be 2 || dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), and defendants’ 3 || motion to dismiss (ECF No. 37) be terminated. 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 5 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within fourteen days 6 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 7 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 8 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 9 || objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 10 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 11 || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst,

(9th Cir. 1991). 12 | DATED: December 1, 2025 . 13 Cthien— Lhier—e_ 14 ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28