Adam Michael Kendall v. Brazil, et al.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

Adam Michael Kendall v. Brazil, et al.

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ADAM MICHAEL KENDALL, No. 2:24-cv-3801 DAD CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 BRAZIL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On September 2, 2025, this Court dismissed plaintiff’s first amended complaint and 18 granted plaintiff thirty days to file a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 26.) On October 3, 19 2025, plaintiff was granted an additional sixty days in which to file an amended complaint. (ECF 20 No. 30.) Sixty days from that date have now expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended 21 complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 22 In recommending this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, the Court has 23 considered “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 24 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 25 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” Ferdik v. 26 Bonzelet,

963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61

(9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). Because this case cannot 27 move forward without plaintiff’s participation, the Court finds the factors weigh in favor of 28 dismissal. ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 2 || prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 4 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1). Within fourteen days 5 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 6 || with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 7 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 8 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst,

951 F.2d 1153

9 || (9th Cir. 1991). 10 11 || Dated: December 11, 2025 4 1 CA Spo | CHI SOO KIM 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 || /1/kend3801.fta 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reference

Status
Unknown