Lena v. Foulk, et al.
Filing
28
ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 12/26/16 ORDERING that Plaintiff's objections filed 6/10/16 and 6/20/16 22 , 23 are DENIED; and Within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint that complies with the 5/11/16, order if he wishes to proceed with this action. Plaintiff is warned that his failure to file a proper amended complaint in a timely manner will result in dismissal of this action.(Mena-Sanchez, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MICHAEL ANGELO LENA,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:15-cv-2276 TLN DB P
v.
ORDER
FRED FOULK, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights
17
18
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court are Plaintiff’s “objections” to the Magistrate
19
Judge’s order issued May 11, 2016. (ECF Nos. 22, 23.1) Plaintiff states therein that he objects to
20
the Magistrate Judge’s dismissal without prejudice of his complaint.
Plaintiff filed his original complaint on November 2, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) On May 11,
21
22
2016, the previously-assigned Magistrate Judge dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint and gave him
23
thirty days to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 17 at 8.) The Magistrate Judge warned
24
Plaintiff that his failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with the order would result in
25
a recommendation that his action be dismissed without prejudice.
26
////
27
28
1
Plaintiff filed “objections” on June 10, 2016 and June 20, 2016. The filings appear to be
identical.
1
1
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a party may object to a magistrate judge’s
2
ruling on a pretrial matter within fourteen days of service of the magistrate judge’s order. The
3
district court may set aside all or part of that order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
4
See also E.D. Cal. R. 303. Because Plaintiff filed his objections more than fourteen days after
5
service of the Magistrate Judge’s order, they are untimely. In addition, the Court finds the
6
Magistrate Judge’s May 11, 2016 order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
7
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
8
1. Plaintiff’s objections filed June 10 and June 20, 2016 (ECF Nos. 22 and 23) are
9
10
denied; and
2. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, Plaintiff must file an amended
11
complaint that complies with the May 11, 2016, order if he wishes to proceed with this
12
action. Plaintiff is warned that his failure to file a proper amended complaint in a
13
timely manner will result in dismissal of this action.
14
15
Dated: December 26, 2016
16
17
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge
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?