Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02821/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02821-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Francisco Perez
Defendant
Jerry Thompson
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRANCISCO PEREZ,

Defendant.

NO. C05-2821 TEH 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

On July 11, 2005, Plaintiff Jerry Thompson filed this action for disability

discrimination, which was originally assigned to Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James. 

Plaintiff has yet to serve Defendant Francisco Perez or identify or serve any of the unnamed

defendants.

On September 29, 2005, Judge James ordered Plaintiff to file, on or before

October 20, 2005, a written form consenting or declining to consent to having his case heard

by a magistrate judge. Plaintiff failed to file either form, and this case was therefore

reassigned to this Court on December 2, 2005, based on Plaintiff’s failure to consent. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (providing that a magistrate judge may conduct any and all proceedings in

a civil case “[u]pon the consent of the parties”).

Concurrent with the reassignment of this action to this Court, Judge James issued a

report and recommendation to dismiss this action for failure to prosecute. Having carefully

reviewed Judge James’s report and recommendation, as well as the record in this case, the

Court concludes that dismissal for failure to prosecute is appropriate. In addition to failing to

respond to the September 29, 2005 order to file a written consent or declination of consent

form, Plaintiff failed to respond to Judge James’s October 13, 2005 order requesting further

information regarding Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and also failed to

appear for the initial case management conference on November 10, 2005. Moreover, Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02821-TEH Document 14 Filed 01/03/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

James’s report and recommendation explicitly informed Plaintiff that, pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 72, any objections to the report and recommendation had to be

served and filed within ten days of service of the report and recommendation. The period for

filing objections expired on December 16, 2005, and Plaintiff failed to file any such

objections prior to – or even subsequent to – that deadline. Judge James further reports that

Plaintiff has been unresponsive to telephone calls from her chambers.

In light of all of the above, the Court cannot reach any other conclusion but that

Plaintiff has no interest in prosecuting this action. Accordingly, with good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Judge James’s December 2, 2005 report and recommendation is adopted, and this

action is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute.

2. Plaintiff’s pending motion to proceed in forma pauperis is VACATED as moot.

3. The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 01/03/06 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:05-cv-02821-TEH Document 14 Filed 01/03/06 Page 2 of 2