Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01099/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01099-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Bakersfield
Defendant
Easiness LP
Defendant
Integrated Capital, LLC
Defendant
Peter Strojnik Sr.
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

PETER STROJNIK SR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTEGRATED CAPITAL, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-1099-DAD-JLT

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND 

DISMISSING THIS ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TWITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Doc. No. 10)

On August 12, 2019, Peter Stronjik, Sr., initiated this action alleging violations of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act against Integrated Capital, LLC. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff filed an 

amended complaint on September 23, 2019, in which the sole defendant identified was Easiness 

LP, doing business as DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Bakersfield. (Doc. No. 6 at 1.) The court 

issued a summons to the newly-named defendant on September 25, 2019. 

On October 30, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge found that plaintiff failed to file a 

proper proof of service reflecting service upon defendant Easiness LP, and ordered him to show 

cause why sanctions, including terminating sanctions, should not be imposed. (Doc. No. 9.) On 

December 9, 2019, after plaintiff failed to respond to the order to show cause, the magistrate 

judge issued the pending findings and recommendations, recommending that the action be

dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s orders and failure 

to prosecute the action. (Doc. No. 10.) Plaintiff was served with the findings and 

Case 1:19-cv-01099-DAD-JLT Document 11 Filed 01/28/20 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

recommendations and given ten (10) days to file any objections to the recommendation of 

dismissal. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff was “advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. (Id. at 9) (citing Martinez v. Ylst, 951 

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991)). To date, no objections have been filed and the time period for doing 

so has expired.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the undersigned has

conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the 

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations dated December 9, 2019 (Doc. No. 10) are 

adopted in full;

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

the court’s orders and failure to prosecute the action; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01099-DAD-JLT Document 11 Filed 01/28/20 Page 2 of 2