Vasquez v. Schwarzenegger et al
Filing
16
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 05/05/11 ORDERING plaintiff's 04/21/11 motion for reconsideration 15 is denied as inapposite. Also, RECOMMENDING that for the reasons given in the 01/03/10 order, that this action be dismissed with prejudice. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
JOE VASQUEZ,
10
Plaintiff,
11
No. CIV S-10-3254 MCE GGH (P)
vs.
12
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER et al.,
13
Defendants.
ORDER AND
14
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
15
/
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se who seeks relief pursuant to U.S.C.
17
§ 1983. On January 3, 2011, the undersigned filed an order dismissing the complaint for failure
18
to state a constitutional claim and giving plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within
19
twenty-eight days. On January 27, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the
20
magistrate judge’s order. On March 21, 2011, the district judge affirmed the magistrate judge’s
21
order.
22
To date, plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Rather, on April 21, 2011,
23
he filed a brief “object[ing] to both the magistrate order filed January 3, 2011 and the . . . district
24
judge order filed March 18, 2011.” (Doc. #15.) Plaintiff’s filing is not one contemplated by the
25
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore plaintiff’s objection, noted on the case docket as a
26
second “motion for reconsideration,” will be denied as inapposite.
1
1
Furthermore, plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint within twenty-eight
2
days of either the magistrate judge’s January 3, 2011 order or the district judge’s March 21, 2011
3
affirmation of that order. Thus, for the reasons given in the January 3, 2011 order, this action
4
will be dismissed with prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
5
6
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s April 21, 2011 motion
for reconsideration (Doc. #15) is denied as inapposite.
7
Also, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED, for the reasons given in the January 3,
8
2010 order, that this action be dismissed with prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P.
9
41(b).
10
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
11
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within
12
fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file
13
written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate
14
Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and
15
served within fourteen days after service of the objections. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file
16
objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.
17
DATED: May 5, 2011
18
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
19
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
20
vasq3254.58ggh
ggh:14
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?