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)

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