Case No. 2:19-cv-01336-TLN-JDP (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS, AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULES OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS
On October 26, 2020, defendants filed a motion to compel plaintiff to provide responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents. ECF No. 24. After plaintiff failed to timely respond to the motion, he was ordered to show cause, by no later than January 4, 2021, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the court's local rules. ECF No. 25. Plaintiff was notified that if he wished to continue this lawsuit, he needed to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants' motion by January 4, 2021. He was also warned that failure to comply with that order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.
The deadline has passed, and plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants' motion nor otherwise responded to the court's order to show cause.
Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that:
1. This action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to comply with the court's local rules.
2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any response to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 22, 2021
JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE