Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01877/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01877-12/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ali
Defendant
Robert Curtis Williams III
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

ROBERT CURTIS WILLIAMS, III,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALI,

Defendant.

No. 2:21-cv-01877-DAD-CKD (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

ACTION DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE 

TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO 

COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER

(Doc. No. 42)

Plaintiff Robert Curtis Williams III is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 December 1, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, due to 

plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action. (Doc. No. 42.) Specifically, the magistrate judge noted 

that the service copy of the court’s orders dated September 13, 2023 (Doc. No. 38), which were 

mailed to plaintiff at his address of record, had been returned to the court marked as 

“Undeliverable” on September 19, 2023. (Id.) Thus, plaintiff was required to file a notice of his

change of address with the court no later than November 27, 2023. (Id.) Because plaintiff had 

Case 2:21-cv-01877-DAD-CKD Document 43 Filed 01/17/24 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 done so, the magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 

183(b)’s requirement “that a party appearing in propria persona inform the court of any address 

change.” (Doc. No. 42 at 1.) Further, because plaintiff had not otherwise communicated with the 

court, and a later mailing to plaintiff had likewise been returned to the court, the magistrate judge 

concluded that plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action. (Doc. Nos. 41, 42) The pending 

findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff by mail at his address of record and 

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

service. (Id. at 1–2.) 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 December 1, 2023 (Doc. No. 42) are 

adopted in full;

2. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to prosecute 

this action and failure to comply with a court order; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-01877-DAD-CKD Document 43 Filed 01/17/24 Page 2 of 2