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