Rogers v. Richard et al
Filing
73
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 3/12/19 ORDERING that the 3/13/2019 status (pretrial scheduling) conference is VACATED and RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. Matter REFERRED to District Judge John A. Mendez. Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. (Kastilahn, A) Modified on 3/12/2019 (Kastilahn, A).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KIM EDWARD ROGERS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
v.
No. 2:17-cv-149-JAM-EFB PS
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
WESLEY J. FISH, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
On January 17, 2019, the court issued an order setting a status (pretrial scheduling)
18
conference for February 13, 2019, and directing the parties to file a status report within fourteen
19
days of the scheduled conference. Defendants timely filed a status report, but plaintiff failed to
20
do so. Accordingly, the status conference was continued, and plaintiff was ordered to show
21
cause, in writing, by no later than February 27, 2019, why sanctions should not be imposed for
22
failure to comply with the court’s January 17, 2019 order. ECF No. 72. Plaintiff was also
23
directed to file his status report by February 27, 2019. Id. Plaintiff was admonished that failure
24
to comply with the order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of
25
prosecution and/or failure to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
26
That deadline has passed and plaintiff has not filed his status report, nor has he otherwise
27
responded to the court’s order to show cause. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the
28
March 13, 2019, status (pretrial scheduling) conference is vacated.
1
1
2
Further, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and
failure to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110.
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, any party may file written
6
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
7
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections
8
within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.
9
Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
10
Dated: March 12, 2019.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
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?