Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06625/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06625-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE CARMEN ADAME, )

)

Plaintiff )

)

v. )

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Defendants )

____________________________________)

CV F 04-6625 AWI SMS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

AND DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiff is proceeding in this civil action pro se. Certain matters have been referred to

United States Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beth pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule

72-302. When Plaintiff did not appear at hearings before Magistrate Judge Beck, on February

11, 2004, Magistrate Judge Beck ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be

dismissed. Magistrate Judge Beck ordered Plaintiff to appear at a hearing on March 4, 2005 and

file a written response to the order to show cause by February 25, 2005. Plaintiff did not comply

with Magistrate Judge Beck’s order and did not appear at any hearings.

On March 15, 2005, Magistrate Judge Beck filed a Report and Recommendation,

recommending that the action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and obey the

court’s orders. The Report and Recommendation was served on Plaintiff and contained notice

that any objections to the Report and Recommendation were to be filed within thirty days. 

Plaintiff did not file objections.

Case 1:04-cv-06625-AWI -SMS Document 14 Filed 04/20/05 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

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

de novo review of this case. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454

(9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the file, the court adopts the recommendation that the action

be dismissed. The court cannot manage its docket if it maintains cases in which a plaintiff fails

to comply with court orders and appear at hearings. The public’s interest in the expeditious

resolution of litigation weighs heavily in favor of dismissal of such cases so that the court’s

limited resources may be spent on cases in which the litigant is actually proceeding. Public

policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits also has little or no weight in actions where

the plaintiff lacks enough of an interest to follow court orders. The availability of less drastic

sanctions has been considered, but given Plaintiff refuses to respond to court orders, the court has

no effective sanction but to close the case.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation filed on March 15, 2005 is ADOPTED; 

2. This action is DISMISSED for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and obey the court’s orders;

and 

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment for Defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 20, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06625-AWI -SMS Document 14 Filed 04/20/05 Page 2 of 2