ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc No. 82.)

DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.

Plaintiff George Vasquez is a former civil detainee at the Coalinga State Hospital ("CSH") proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought 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 11, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that this action be dismissed (1) as moot and (2) due to plaintiff's failure to obey a court order. (Doc. No. 82.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found that plaintiff's due process claim—challenging a California Department of State Hospitals ("DSH") regulation that restricted his access to certain electronic devices—was mooted by DSH's amendment to that regulation in 2018 to allow patients to possess otherwise prohibited electronic devices under supervision. (Id. at 3-6.) In this court's September 30, 2018 order adopting the magistrate judge's August 31, 2018 findings and recommendations recommending dismissal of plaintiff's first amended complaint ("FAC") as moot, the undersigned adopted in full the magistrate judge's finding that the FAC had been rendered moot by the 2018 amendment to the challenged regulation as well as the recommendation that plaintiff be permitted leave to file a second amended complaint to "address[] the harm allegedly caused by violation of his due process rights from the implementation of [the challenged regulation], as amended in 2018." (Doc. Nos. 60, 66.) As the pending findings and recommendations note, however, "months have passed since the court asked for an amended complaint from plaintiff, and he has not amended his complaint." (Doc. No. 82 at 1.) Accordingly, the pending finding and recommendations recommend the dismissal of this action due to plaintiff's failure to obey a court order. Finally, the findings and recommendation recommend dismissing plaintiff's motion to stay (Doc. No. 72) these proceedings pending the Ninth Circuit's decision on plaintiff's interlocutory appeal because (1) the Ninth Circuit "has already rejected his arguments" and found that his due process claim was moot and (2) an "interlocutory appeal ordinarily does not warrant a stay of proceedings." (Doc. No. 82 at 11) (citing California v. Azar, 911 F/3d 558, 584 (9th Cir. 2018). The findings and recommendations contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen days. (Doc. No. 82 at 14.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time to do so has since passed.1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C) and Local Rule 304, the undersigned 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 by proper analysis.

Accordingly:

IT IS SO ORDERED.