Davis v. Carlton et al

Filing 22

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/10/2014 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL S. DAVIS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:11-cv-1100 TLN KJN P

v.

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

C. CARLTON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

By order filed December 12, 2013, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days

18

leave to file an amended complaint was granted. On February 13, 2014, plaintiff was granted

19

sixty days in which to file an amended complaint. On May 2, 2014, plaintiff was granted an

20

additional sixty days in which to file an amended complaint. Sixty days from that date have now

21

expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s

22

order.

23
24

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without
prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

25

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

26

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

27

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

28

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings
1

1

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified

2

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

3

(9th Cir. 1991).

4

Dated: July 10, 2014

5
6

/davi1100.fta

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2