Filed: Feb. 20, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 20, 2020
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and ORDER DENYING PENDING MOTIONS AS MOOT (Doc. Nos. 23, 27, 41, 44, and 45) ANTHONY W. ISHII , Senior District Judge . Louis A. Alarcon ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On September 30
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and ORDER DENYING PENDING MOTIONS AS MOOT (Doc. Nos. 23, 27, 41, 44, and 45) ANTHONY W. ISHII , Senior District Judge . Louis A. Alarcon ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On September 30,..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and ORDER DENYING PENDING MOTIONS AS MOOT
(Doc. Nos. 23, 27, 41, 44, and 45)
ANTHONY W. ISHII, Senior District Judge.
Louis A. Alarcon ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On September 30, 2019, the Magistrate Judge entered findings and recommendations, recommending that this case be dismissed, without prejudice, based on Plaintiff's own motion to dismiss the case. (ECF Nos. 44 and 45.) Neither party filed objections.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Additionally, there are several motions that remain pending, a motion for extension of the discovery deadline (Doc. No. 23), a motion to compel interrogatory responses (Doc. No. 27), and a motion to compel document production (Doc. No. 41). With the dismissal of this case pursuant to Rule 41, these pending motions will all be denied as moot.
Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:
1. The findings and recommendations entered by the Magistrate Judge on September 30, 2019 (Doc. No. 45) are ADOPTED IN FULL;
2. Plaintiff's motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 44) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice;
3. Document Numbers 23, 27, and 41 are DENIED as moot; and
4. The Clerk is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
