Diaz v. Stainer et al

Filing 24

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 10/7/2016 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIGUEL ENRIQUE DIAZ, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:15-cv-2173 JAM DB P v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATTHEW STAINER, et al., 15 Defendant. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 17 18 1983. On February 23, 2016, plaintiff filed a complaint regarding the denial of proper medical 19 care. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff identified defendants Matthew Stainer, Dr. Bick, Dr. Ditomas, Dr. 20 Dhillon, and Dr. McAllister as the defendants in this action. On May 3, 2016, the complaint was 21 dismissed and plaintiff was given the opportunity to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 15.) 22 On June 16, 2016, plaintiff was granted a 30-day extension of time to file that amended 23 complaint. (ECF No. 19.) On September 1, 2016, plaintiff was granted a second 30-day 24 extension of time to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 23.) In that order, plaintiff was 25 warned that failure to file an amended complaint within 30 days would result in a 26 recommendation that this case be dismissed. (Id.) Thirty days have expired. Plaintiff has not 27 filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 28 //// 1 1 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 4 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 5 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 6 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 7 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 8 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 9 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 Dated: October 7, 2016 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 DLB:9 DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/Diaz2173.fta ext 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?