Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01490/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01490-8/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

GUARY L. SHUFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. BAKER,

Defendant.

No. 2:22-cv-01490-DAD-DMC (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

ACTION DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE 

TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO 

COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS

(Doc. No. 25)

Plaintiff Guary L. Shuford is a 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 4, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

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

plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and failure to comply with court orders. (Doc. No. 25.) 

Specifically, the magistrate judge noted that the service copy of the court’s orders dated July 12, 

2023 (Doc. No. 19), which was mailed to plaintiff at his address of record, had been returned to 

the court marked as “Undeliverable” on July 28, 2023. (Doc. No. 22.) Thus, plaintiff was 

required to file a notice of his change of address with the court no later than October 5, 2023. 

Case 2:22-cv-01490-DAD-DMC Document 26 Filed 02/09/24 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

(Id.) Because plaintiff had not done so, the magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff has failed to 

comply with Local Rule 183(b)’s requirement “that a party appearing in propria persona inform 

the court of any address change.” (Doc. No. 25 at 1.) Further, because plaintiff had not otherwise 

communicated with the court, and later mailings to plaintiff had likewise been returned to the 

court, the magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action. (Doc. Nos. 

22, 24, 25.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff by mail at his

address of record and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen 

(14) days after service. (Doc. No. 25 at 2.) To date, no objections to the findings and 

recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed.

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

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

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

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 4, 2023 (Doc. No. 25) are 

adopted in full;

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

this action 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: February 8, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-01490-DAD-DMC Document 26 Filed 02/09/24 Page 2 of 2