Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00477/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00477-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATHANIEL BROWN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0477 DFL PAN P

vs.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY

SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On April 22, 2005, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff did

not oppose the motion. On January 25, 2006, a magistrate judge filed findings and

recommendations recommending that the motion be denied. The findings and recommendations

were served on all parties and contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings

and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Neither party filed objections to those

findings and recommendations.

On March 8, 2006, a magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

recommending dismissal of this action without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to file a pretrial

Case 2:04-cv-00477-DFL-PAN Document 28 Filed 03/30/06 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

2

statement. Those findings and recommendations were also served on all parties and contained

notice to all parties that any objections to those findings and recommendations were to be filed

within twenty days. Neither party has filed objections to the March 8, 2006 findings and

recommendations.

After review of the entire record herein, the court will adopt the March 8, 2006

findings and recommendations and dismiss this action without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure

to file a pretrial statement. Defendants’ April 22, 2005 motion for summary judgment is mooted

by the dismissal of this action and will be denied for that reason.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 8, 2006 are adopted in full;

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f); Local

Rule 11-110; and

3. Defendants’ April 22, 2005 motion for summary judgment is denied as moot.

DATED: March 29, 2006. 

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00477-DFL-PAN Document 28 Filed 03/30/06 Page 2 of 2