Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00307/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00307-20/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES RAYMOND,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARREN MARTIN,

Defendant.

INGRID CRAWFORD SMITH, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al.,

Defendants.

A.J.C.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:18-cv-00307-DAD-JLT

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

PLAINTIFF JAMES RAYMOND’S CLAIMS 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Doc. No. 89)

Case 1:18-cv-00307-KES-CDB Document 92 Filed 11/08/21 Page 1 of 3
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

On March 5, 2018, plaintiff James Raymond, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action 

alleging that defendants are liable for the wrongful death of his son, Augustus Joshua Crawford. 

(Doc. No. 1.) This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On September 15, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that “[b]ecause Raymond has failed to comply with the Local 

Rules and failed to prosecute his claims and has absented himself from this litigation,” plaintiff 

Raymond’s claims be dismissed without prejudice and that this action proceed only with the 

claims of the remaining plaintiffs and with James Raymond joined as a nominal defendant. (Doc. 

No. 89.) Specifically, plaintiff has failed to “keep the court and opposing parties advised as to his 

[] current address,” as required by Local Rule 183, and since June 2021, all mail sent by the court 

to plaintiff at his address of record has been returned by the U.S. Postal Service as 

“Undeliverable: Not Deliverable as Addressed; Unable to Forward.” See L.R. 183(b). 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. 89 at 5.) On 

October 12, 2021, those findings and recommendations mailed to plaintiff was also returned to 

the court as “Undeliverable: Not Deliverable as Addressed; Unable to Forward.” 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 September 15, 2021 (Doc. No. 89) 

are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff James Raymond’s claims in this action are dismissed without prejudice;

/////

/////

Case 1:18-cv-00307-KES-CDB Document 92 Filed 11/08/21 Page 2 of 3
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

3

3. This action proceeds only on the claims of plaintiffs Ingrid Crawford Smith, A.C., 

and A.J.C., with James Raymond joined as a nominal defendant; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect that plaintiff 

James Raymond has been terminated as a plaintiff in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 6, 2021 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-00307-KES-CDB Document 92 Filed 11/08/21 Page 3 of 3