Cearley v. Wells Fargo Bank
Filing
71
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 7/24/2017 VACATING the 7/26/2017 Motion to Dismiss Hearing and the 8/9/2017 Initial Scheduling Conference. It is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with court orders and local rules. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.(Donati, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RONALD E. CEARLEY,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:15-cv-353-MCE-EFB PS
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
WELLS FARGO BANK,
Defendant.
16
17
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s second amended complaint pursuant to
18
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which was noticed for hearing on June 28, 2017. ECF
19
No. 65. Plaintiff failed to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion.
20
Accordingly, the hearing was continued to July 26, 2017, and plaintiff was ordered, by no later
21
than July 12, 2017, to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion and to show
22
cause why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to timely file an opposition or
23
statement of non-opposition. ECF No. 69. Plaintiff was also admonished that failure to file an
24
opposition would be deemed a statement of non-opposition to the granting of defendant’s motion
25
and could result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution and/or
26
failure to comply with court orders and the court’s local rules. Id.
27
28
The deadline has passed and plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of nonopposition to the pending motion, nor has he responded to the court’s order to show cause.
1
1
2
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the July 26, 2017 hearing on defendant’s motion
to dismiss and the August 9, 2017 Initial Scheduling Conference are vacated.
3
Further, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and
4
to comply with court orders and the court’s local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R.
5
110.
6
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
7
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
8
after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
9
with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings
10
and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right
11
to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998);
12
Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
13
DATED: July 24, 2017.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
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?