Hardwick v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al.

Filing 31

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 1/23/19 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NICHOLAS KURT HARDWICK,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-0854 TLN DB P

Plaintiff,
v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,

16

Defendant.

17
18

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in an action brought

19

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims defendants Dr. Leo and Dr. Newman were deliberately

20

indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

21

By order dated September 13, 2018, plaintiff was directed to file an amended complaint.

22

(ECF No. 29.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint and on December 26, 2018, the court

23

ordered plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or dismiss this action within fourteen days.

24

(ECF No. 30.) Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply would result in a recommendation that

25

this action be dismissed.

26

Those fourteen days have passed and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint,

27

notified the court he wishes to dismiss this action, updated his address, or otherwise responded to

28

the court’s order.
1

1
2
3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without
prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
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)(1). 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: January 23, 2019

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

DLB:12
DLB:1/orders/prisoner-civil rights/hard0854.fsc

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2