Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00271/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00271-4/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

AYALNEH DILNESSA,

Plaintiff,

v.

KELLY S. O’BRIEN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:24-cv-00271-DAD-JDP (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND 

DISMISSING THIS ACTION

(Doc. No. 18)

Plaintiff Ayalneh Dilnessa proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985. (See Doc. No. 5 at 3.) The matter was referred to a United 

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On October 8, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

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

comply with court orders and failure to prosecute this action. (Doc. No. 18 at 3.) Specifically, 

plaintiff has failed to comply with the magistrate judge’s order dated March 15, 2024 granting 

plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint. (See Doc. No. 16.) On July 11, 2024, the 

magistrate judge issued an order to show cause within twenty-one days why this case should not 

be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. (Doc. No. 17.)

/////

Case 2:24-cv-00271-DAD-JDP Document 19 Filed 12/19/24 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

Plaintiff has not responded to the magistrate judge’s order to show cause, nor has plaintiff filed an 

amended complaint.

The pending findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained 

notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Doc. 

No. 18 at 3.) 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 October 8, 2024 (Doc. No. 18) are 

adopted in full;

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

with court orders and failure to prosecute this action; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 19, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-00271-DAD-JDP Document 19 Filed 12/19/24 Page 2 of 2