Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00581/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00581-5/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

DOROTHY YORK,

Plaintiff,

v.

TOCHI E. EZENWUGO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:18-cv-00581-DAD-GSA

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. No. 17)

Plaintiff Dorothy York is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

with this civil rights action pursuant to 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 Rule 302. 

The case proceeds on plaintiff’s original complaint filed April 30, 2019, in which she 

alleges an Eighth Amendment medical claim against defendants Tochi Ezenwugo and Jennifer 

Adame. (Doc. No. 1.) On June 10, 2019, the court issued an order requiring plaintiff to provide 

addresses within thirty days to enable service of process upon defendants Ezenwugo and Adame. 

(Doc. No. 15.) The thirty-day period passed, and plaintiff did not provide addresses for services. 

Accordingly, on August 12, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued an order requiring 

plaintiff to show cause in writing within thirty days why this case should not be dismissed for 

plaintiff’s failure to provide addresses for purposes of effectuating service upon defendants 

Ezenwugo and Adame. (Doc. No. 16.) That thirty-day time period has passed, and plaintiff has 

Case 1:18-cv-00581-DAD-GSA Document 18 Filed 01/16/20 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

not provided addresses for service or otherwise responded to the court’s orders. 

Consequently, on October 8, 2019, the magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations, recommending that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to comply 

with the court’s orders of June 10, 2019 and August 12, 2019. (Doc. No. 17.) The findings and 

recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 

to be filed within fourteen days after service. (Id. at 3.) No objections 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) and Local Rule 304, 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 proper 

analysis. 

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 8, 2019 (Doc. No. 17) are 

adopted in full;

2. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with 

court orders; and 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-00581-DAD-GSA Document 18 Filed 01/16/20 Page 2 of 2