Ward v. Ives et al
Filing
61
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/17/14 recommending that this action be dismissed. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOHN C. WARD,
12
13
14
No. 2:11-cv-1657-GEB-EFB P
Plaintiff,
v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RICHARD IVES, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is proceeding without counsel in an action brought pursuant to the Federal Tort
18
Claims Act (“FTCA”) claim and First Amendment and Eighth Amendment claims under Bivens
19
v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). This
20
proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
21
On September 30, 2014, the assigned district judge adopted this court’s September 4,
22
2014 findings and recommendations, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss certain claims and
23
gave plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days addressing the deficiencies on
24
the Eighth Amendment claim alleged against defendants Salinas, Binford, and Fieber. That order
25
also warned plaintiff that failure to timely file an amended complaint could result in this action
26
being dismissed.
27
28
The time for acting has now passed and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, or
otherwise responded to the court’s order.
1
1
A party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules “may be grounds for
2
imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the
3
inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The court may dismiss an action with or
4
without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v.
5
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in
6
dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an amended
7
complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439,
8
1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule
9
regarding notice of change of address affirmed).
10
11
Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b); E. D. Cal. Local Rule 110.
12
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
13
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
14
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
15
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
16
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
17
objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The
18
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
19
appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez
20
v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
21
Dated: November 17, 2014.
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?