Wright v. Ford et al

Filing 35

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION Recommending Dismissal of Action for Failure to State a Cognizable Claim, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 3/13/14. Referred to Judge Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 3/31/2014. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRISTOPHER LANE WRIGHT,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

L.T. FORD, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01672-AWI-SAB (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE
CLAIM
[ECF No. 26]

Plaintiff Christopher Lane Wright is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On November 19, 2013, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint was dismissed, with leave to

19
20

amend, for failure to state a cognizable claim. Despite having received two extensions of time,

21

Plaintiff has failed to file a second amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s order

22

within the allotted time frame. More than thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has not complied with

23

or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. As a result, there is no pleading on file which sets forth

24

any claims upon which relief may be granted.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, with prejudice

25
26

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), this action is HEREBY DISMISSED, with

27

prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section

28

1983.
1

1
2
3
4

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District Court
Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of
Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fifteen (15) days
after being served with a copy, Plaintiff may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on

5

all parties. Such a document should be captioned AObjections to Magistrate Judge=s Findings and

6

Recommendation.@ The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge=s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '

7
8

636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may
waive the right to appeal the District Court=s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

9
10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 13, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2