Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01142/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01142-9/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

OLEKSANDR KASIANOV,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARTIN GAMBOA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-01142-DAD-DMC (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DIDMISSING 

ACTION DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE 

TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO 

COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER

(Doc. No. 24)

Plaintiff Oleksandr Kasianov 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 December 19, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending this action be dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s 

failure to prosecute this action and failure to comply with a court order. (Doc. No. 24.) 

Specifically, on August 15, 2023, the magistrate judge dismissed plaintiff’s first amended 

complaint and directed him to file a second amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the 

entry of that order. (Doc. No. 16.) On September 15, 2023 and October 23, 2023, the court 

granted plaintiff extensions of thirty (30) days to file his second amended complaint. (Doc. Nos. 

19, 23.) Plaintiff has not filed a second amended complaint to proceed with this action and the 

Case 2:22-cv-01142-DAD-DMC Document 25 Filed 11/25/24 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

deadline in which to do so has passed. In addition, 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. (Doc. No. 24 at 2.) To date, plaintiff has also not filed any 

objections and the time in which to do so has 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 December 19, 2023 (Doc. No. 24) 

are adopted in full;

2. This action is dismissed, without prejudice; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 25, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-01142-DAD-DMC Document 25 Filed 11/25/24 Page 2 of 2