(PC) Harrison v. Birtwell

Opinion

MICHAEL DAVID HARRISON, No. 2:24-cv-01413-DC-CSK (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING BIRTWELL, et al., THIS ACTION Defendants. (Doc. No. 14) Plaintiff Michael David Harrison is a federal prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 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 January 17, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending this action be dismissed, without prejudice, due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and failure to comply with a court order. (Doc. No. 14.) Specifically, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the court’s order dated August 5, 2024, in which Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed due to his failure to state a cognizable claim and Plaintiff was directed to file a first amended complaint within thirty days. (Doc. No. 8.) Plaintiff did not thereafter file a first amended complaint, despite having received an extension of time in which to do so. (Doc. No. 13.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Doc. No. 14 at 1.) 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 January 17, 2025 (Doc. No. 14) 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: _ April 3, 2025 RVI <—_ Dena Coggins United States District Judge