Goode v. St. Jude Medical, et al

Filing 25

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, recommending this action be dismissed without prejudice and Clerk be directed to close the case, signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 4/19/2010. Within 14 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written Objections with Court. (Marciel, M)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. ST. JUDE MEDICAL, TWEED HANUSEK, BILL HILTON, ST. JUDE MEDICAL CARDIAC, RUTH GAGARIN, IRMA ESTRADA, BRIDGET FELLOWS, NICOLE ARANA, NES KUSNIERZ, KATHY CHESTER, ST JUDE MEDICAL CARDIAC RHYTHM MANAGEMENT and DOES 1-20, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. / This action, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On February 1, 2010, the district court adopted this court's findings and recommendations and granted defendants' motions to dismiss in part. That order dismissed plaintiff's amended complaint with leave to amend within sixty days. //// //// 1 MARY GOODE, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-0302 MCE EFB PS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

The sixty-day period has expired and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the order.1 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice, and that the Clerk be directed to close this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). DATED: April 19, 2010.

Although it appears from the file that plaintiff's copy of the order was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 2

1