Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02137/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02137-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS ALBERTO MEZA ROJO,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMADOR JAIL, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-02137-DAD-JDP (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

THIS ACTION

(Doc. No. 32)

Plaintiff Luis Alberto Meza Rojo is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred 

to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On April 23, 2024, Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota held a settlement conference at 

which plaintiff and defendant Martin agreed to a voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). (Doc. No. 28.) On May 23, 2024, counsel for 

defendant Martin filed a status report indicating that he had mailed plaintiff a copy of the 

stipulated dismissal and a self-addressed stamp envelope to plaintiff, but that plaintiff had not 

signed and mailed that stipulation for voluntary dismissal back. (Doc. No. 29 at 2.) To address 

this situation, on June 17, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge ordered plaintiff to file a response 

to defendant’s status report within fourteen (14) days of that order’s issuance. (Doc. No. 30 at 2.) 

/////

Case 2:22-cv-02137-DAD-JDP Document 33 Filed 12/20/24 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Plaintiff has not filed a response to defendant’s status report and the time in which to do so has 

passed.

Accordingly, on October 8, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, due to 

plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the court’s order. (Doc. No. 32.) The 

findings and recommendations were served upon plaintiff and contained notice that any 

objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 3.) To date, 

plaintiff has not filed any objections and the time in which to do so has also passed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 

pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 8, 2024 (Doc. No. 32) are 

adopted in full;

2. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute 

and failure to comply with a court order; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-02137-DAD-JDP Document 33 Filed 12/20/24 Page 2 of 2