Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01837/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01837-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARY DEAN REED, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

vs.

KERN COUNTY POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, et al., 

 Defendants.

 /

1:06-cv-1837 OWW TAG

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS 

ACTION FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT

ORDER AND DENY PENDING MOTIONS

(Doc. 25)

 

Plaintiff Mary Dean Reed, while incarcerated at the Lerdo Pretrial Detention Center, filed

a pro se civil rights complaint, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on behalf of herself and M. Dean Reed Production

Company. (Doc. 1). On February 13, 2007, the Court entered an order that dismissed Plaintiff’s

complaint without prejudice, directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, and warned her that

failure to comply with the order might result in the dismissal of her case. (Doc. 18). Plaintiff moved

to reinstate her complaint and submitted various filings, but did not file an amended complaint in

accordance with the Court’s February 13, 2007, order. (Docs. 19, 22, 23, 24).

On April 3, 2007. the Magistrate Judge filed a report and recommendation, recommending

that this case be dismissed for failure to obey a court order, and that all pending motions be denied.

(Doc. 25). This document was served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to

be filed within fifteen (15) days of the date of service. Plaintiff has since been released from

custody, paid the $350 filing fee, and submitted documents purporting to relate to a vacated

scheduling conference. (Docs. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30). On April 19, 2007, Plaintiff filed a “motion to

Case 1:06-cv-01837-OWW -TAG Document 41 Filed 05/21/07 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

not vacate Scheduling Conference,” which this Court construes as objections to the report and

recommendation. (Doc. 31). Despite their untimeliness, the undersigned has considered these

objections and has determined that there is no need to modify the report and recommendation based

on the points raised in them. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 72(b), and Local Rule 72-304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case.

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the report and recommendation filed on

April 3, 2007, to be supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge’s analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The report and recommendation (Doc. 25), filed April 3, 2007, is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Plaintiff’s civil rights action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to

comply with the Court’s February 13, 2007, order; 

3. All pending motions in this action are DENIED as MOOT; and

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this action because this order terminates the

 action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01837-OWW -TAG Document 41 Filed 05/21/07 Page 2 of 2