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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?