Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00395/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00395-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Olajuwon Hanssebastien Labeyrie
Plaintiff
Maryam M. Mujali
Defendant

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

OLAJUWON HANSSEBASTIEN 

LABEYRIE,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARYAM M. MUJALI,

Defendant.

No. 1:16-cv-00395-DAD-BAM

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 

DISMISSAL OF THIS ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER

(Doc. Nos. 4, 5)

Plaintiff Olajuwon Hanssebastien Labeyrie, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

initiated this civil action on March 24, 2016. (Doc. No. 1.) On April 22, 2016, the assigned 

magistrate judge dismissed the complaint and granted plaintiff thirty days within which to file an 

amended complaint. (Doc. No. 4, at 5.) The magistrate judge specifically warned that “[i]f 

plaintiff fails to file a first amended complaint in compliance with this order, this action will be 

dismissed for failure to obey a court order.” (Id.) Nonetheless, plaintiff has failed to file an 

amended complaint despite the fact that well over thirty days have passed since that order.

On June 6, 2016, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that the action be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s 

April 22, 2016 order. (Doc. No. 5.) Those findings and recommendations were served on 

plaintiff, and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 

Case 1:16-cv-00395-DAD-BAM Document 9 Filed 07/22/16 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

service. (Id.) More than fourteen days have passed and no objections have been filed by 

plaintiff.

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. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 6, 2016 (Doc. No. 5), are adopted 

in full; 

2. This action is dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s order; and 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2016

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00395-DAD-BAM Document 9 Filed 07/22/16 Page 2 of 2