Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06491/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06491-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

MARTHA ACOSTA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

CITY OF SELMA, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

CV F 04-6491 AWI DLB

ORDER ADOPTING

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION AND

DISMISSING ACTION

(Document #8)

Plaintiff Martha Acosta (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on November 1, 2004. 

When Plaintiff did not appear at the mandatory scheduling conference, timely serve her

complaint, or appear at a hearing to show cause why this action should not be dismissed, on April

4, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations, recommending that this

action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s orders and diligently

prosecute this action. The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and

contained notice that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed

within thirty days. Plaintiff did not file objections.

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

the expeditious resolution of litigation weighs heavily in favor of dismissal of such cases so that

Case 1:04-cv-06491-AWI-DLB Document 10 Filed 05/10/05 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

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 comply with court orders. The availability of

less drastic sanctions has been considered, but given that Plaintiff has failed to respond to the

court’s order to show cause, file objections to the Findings and Recommendations, or otherwise

contact the court, the court has no effective sanction but to close the case.

Based upon the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed April 4, 2004, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. This action is DISMISSED for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order and failure

to diligently prosecute this action; and 

3. The Clerk of the Court shall close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

9h0d30 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06491-AWI-DLB Document 10 Filed 05/10/05 Page 2 of 2