Musgrove

Musgrove v. Hanifin

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaOctober 25, 20233:20-cv-00614California662 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

] 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 |) MUSGROVE, Case No.: 20-CV-614-JO-BLM Plaintiff, 13 |] V- ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 16] ante a RECOMMENDATION AND Defendants.| WITH PREJUDICE 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff Irvin Musgrove (“Plaintiff”), representing himself pro se, filed a civil rights action on March 31, 2020, against Angie Hanifin, Margery Pierce, Keysa Machado, Susanz ||Sandoval-Soto, and the Oceanside Housing Authority (“Defendants”). Dkt. 1. Plaintif 23 || filed his operative pleading on October 18, 2021. Dkt. 134. On June 8, 2023, Defendant: 24 || moved for terminating sanctions and dismissal of the case on the grounds that Plaintiff ha: 25 || failed to prosecute his case and comply with court orders. Dkts. 223, 227. On July 27 2023, Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major issued a Report and Recommendation granting 27 || Defendants’ motion and ordered any objections to be…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.