(PC) Clark v. Gutierrez

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10

11 CHRISTOPHER CHARLES CLARK, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-1386 JLT EPG (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ) ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND ) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE 14 FIDEL GUTIERREZ, et al., ) THE CASE ) 15 Defendants. ) (Doc. 49) ) 16 )

17 This action is proceeding on claims arising under the Eighth Amendment against Defendants 18 Garza, Carolina, Espitia, Aguilar, Oehlert, Nitescu, Jane Doe (a TTA), and Rizk for deliberate 19 indifference to his serious medical needs; arising under California Gov't Code Section 845.6 against 20 Defendants Garza, Carolina, Espitia, Aguilar, Oehlert, and Nitescu; negligence against Defendants 21 Shirley, White, Cronjager, Thomas, Gutierrez, Doe 1 (a contractor supervisor), and Doe 2 (a 22 contractor); and medical negligence claims against Defendants Jane Doe (a TTA) and Rizk. (Docs. 13, 23 15, 18.) 24 The Court ordered Plaintiff to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to 25 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment within 30 days. (Doc. 45.) Plaintiff did respond. 26 Therefore, the magistrate judge found “Plaintiff has stopped prosecuting this case, despite being 27 warned of possible dismissal.” (Doc. 49 at 3.) The magistrate judge recommended the action be 28 dismissed, without prejudice, and the pending motion be denied as moot. (Id. at 4.) 1 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on all parties and notified them that any 2 || objections were due within 14 days of the date of service. (Doc. 49 at 4.) The Court also advised tha 3 || the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” 4 || Ud, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014), Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 5 || 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) To date, no objections have been filed and the time to do so has passed. 6 || Plaintiff has not taken any action to further prosecute this case. 7 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. 8 || Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations ar 9 || supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 10 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated July 12, 2023 (Doc. 49) are ADOPTED. 11 2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 12 3. Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment is denied as MOOT. 13 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 14 16 || Dated: _ August 20, 2023 ( LAW pA L. wun 17 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28