Tenerelli v. Shasta County Jail et al

Filing 19

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/16/2015 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to state a claim. Referred to Judge William B. Shubb; 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

PATRICK TENERELLI,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-0553-WBS-EFB P

Plaintiff,
v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SHASTA COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28

19

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

20

On May 7, 2015, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. That order

21

explained the deficiencies in the complaint and granted plaintiff thirty days to file an amended

22

complaint to cure the deficiencies identified in the screening order. Plaintiff was admonished that

23

failure to file an amended complaint would result in a recommendation that this action be

24

dismissed for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 16. The time for acting has passed and plaintiff

25

has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

26

A party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules “may be grounds for

27

imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the

28

inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The court may dismiss an action with or
1

1

without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v.

2

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in

3

dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an amended

4

complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439,

5

1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule

6

regarding notice of change of address affirmed).

7

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED for failure to

8

prosecute and failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E. D. Cal. Local

9

Rule 110.

10

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

11

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

12

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

13

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

14

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

15

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

16

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

17

appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez

18

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

19

Dated: June 16, 2015.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2