(PC) Dunlap v. Kern County Sheriff

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 RUSSELL WARREN DUNLAP, JR., ) Case No.: 1:25-cv-0526 JLT SAB ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 13 v. ) ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE ) TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO OBEY THE 14 KERN COUNTY SHERIFF, ) COURT’S ORDER, AND DIRECTING THE ) CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THIS CASE 15 Defendant. ) ) (Doc. 7) 16

17 Russell Warren Dunlap Jr. initiated this action by filing a complaint on May 5, 2025. Because 18 Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee, the Court ordered him to pay the filing fee in full or to file a motion 19 to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 3.) After Plaintiff failed to respond, the Court ordered him to 20 show why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the 21 Court’s order. (Doc. 5.) Again, Plaintiff did not respond. 22 The magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to prosecute this action and failed to comply with the 23 Court’s orders. (Doc. 7 at 1, 2.) The magistrate judge found “dismissal of the action is warranted” 24 after considering the factors identified by the Ninth Circuit for the imposition of terminating sanctions. 25 (Id. at 2-3.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court dismiss the action without 26 prejudice. (Id. at 3.) 27 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any 28 objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 7 at 3.) The Court advised him that the “failure to file 1 || objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘right to challenge the magistrate’: 2 || factual findings’ on appeal.” Ud., quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 3 |}2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. 4 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Havi 5 || carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported 6 || by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 7 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated August 5, 2025 (Doc. 7) are ADOPTED it 8 full. 9 2. The action is DISMISSED without prejudice, for failure to prosecute and failure to 10 comply with the Court’s orders. 11 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 12 13 IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ August 25, 2025 ( LAW ph L. wan 15 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28