Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05986/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05986-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMUEL A. BOYD,

Plaintiff,

vs.

L.A. COUNTY SHERIFF, et. al.,

Defendants.

 

CIV-F-04-5986 AWI DLB PC

ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 10)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights Section 1983 action. The

matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and

Local Rule 72-302. 

The Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to the requirements of 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In reviewing the complaint, he found that Plaintiff’s allegations only stated a

claim against one defendant. On January 20, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued an order

directing Plaintiff to respond. Doc. 9. Plaintiff was given the option of amending his complaint

or electing to continue suit against the one defendant. Plaintiff was also clearly warned that

failure to respond within thirty (30) days would result in dismissal of suit. The order was

properly served on Plaintiff by mail, but no response was received. 

On March 8, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations which

recommended that the suit be dismissed for failure to obey the January 20, 2005 order. Doc. 10. 

Case 1:04-cv-05986-AWI-DLB Document 11 Filed 06/02/05 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

The Findings and Recommendation contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections were to be

filed within twenty (20) days. To date, more than eighty (80) days later, Plaintiff has not filed

objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305,

the court has conducted a de novo review of this case. In determining whether to dismiss an

action for lack of prosecution or failure to obey court orders, the five factors to be considered are:

(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigations; (2) the court’s need to manage its

docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendant; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of

cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson v. Housing

Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court

finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders or to respond in this case is an insurmountable impediment

to continuing the action. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed March 8, 2005, are ADOPTED IN

FULL; and,

2. This action is DISMISSED based on Plaintiff’s failure to obey the court's order of

January 19, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 31, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05986-AWI-DLB Document 11 Filed 06/02/05 Page 2 of 2