Gjerde v. Employment Development Department et al

Filing 22

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 11/22/2017 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections to F&R due within 21 days. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SEAN GJERDE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-00062 TLN AC (PS)

v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The action was accordingly referred to the

18
19

undersigned for pretrial matters by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21). On October 2, 2017,

20

defendants filed a motion to dismiss this case. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff failed to timely respond,

21

and the court issued an order continuing the hearing on the motion and warning plaintiff that

22

failure to respond would result in dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 18.

23

Plaintiff again failed to respond, and defendants filed a notice of no receipt of opposition. ECF

24

No. 19.

25

The undersigned held a hearing on the motion to dismiss on November 22, 2017. ECF

26

No. 21. Plaintiff did not appear and filed no papers in opposition to defendants’ motion to

27

dismiss. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without

28

prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court’s order. See Fed. R.
1

1

Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110.

2

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

3

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one

4

(21) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

5

objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

6

Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Failure to file objections within the

7

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

8

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

9

DATED: November 22, 2017

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2