Gabriel Armenta v. Robert Frank

E.D. California

Gabriel Armenta v. Robert Frank

DecidedSeptember 10, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-02075

StatusUnknown

This text of Gabriel Armenta v. Robert Frank (Gabriel Armenta v. Robert Frank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gabriel Armenta v. Robert Frank, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GABRIEL ARMENTA, 12 Plaintiff, No. 2:24-cv-2075-TLN-CKD P 13 v. 14 ROBERT FRANK, ORDER 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Fabriel Armenta (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil 18 rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On May 7, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were 21 served on Plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 9.) This deadline has passed, 23 and no objections have been filed. Although it appears from the docket that the copy of the 24 findings and recommendations sent to Plaintiff was returned, Plaintiff was properly served. It is 25 the Plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. 26 Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully 27 effective. 28 /// 1 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 2 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 3 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 4 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court[.]”). 5 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 6 the record and by the proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The findings and recommendations, (ECF No. 9), are ADOPTED in full; 9 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See E.D. Cal. L. R. 10 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 11 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 12 Date: September 9, 2025 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GABRIEL ARMENTA, 12 Plaintiff, No. 2:24-cv-2075-TLN-CKD P 13 v. 14 ROBERT FRANK, ORDER 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Fabriel Armenta (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil 18 rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On May 7, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were 21 served on Plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 9.) This deadline has passed, 23 and no objections have been filed. Although it appears from the docket that the copy of the 24 findings and recommendations sent to Plaintiff was returned, Plaintiff was properly served. It is 25 the Plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. 26 Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully 27 effective. 28 /// 1 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 2 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 3 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 4 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court[.]”). 5 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 6 the record and by the proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The findings and recommendations, (ECF No. 9), are ADOPTED in full; 9 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See E.D. Cal. L. R. 10 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 11 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 12 Date: September 9, 2025 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gabriel Armenta v. Robert Frank, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gabriel-armenta-v-robert-frank-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack