Davis v. Office of the Public Defender et al

Filing 8

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 06/30/17 recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell. 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

ROBERT DAVIS,

12

Plaintiff,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-0924 GEB KJN P

v.
THE OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC
DEFENDER, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a former Sacramento County Jail inmate, later transferred to state custody. By

18
19

an order filed May 9, 2017, plaintiff was ordered to file a certified copy of his jail trust account

20

statement, and was cautioned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this

21

action be dismissed.
Plaintiff’s copy of the order, directed to the jail, was returned as undeliverable. On May

22
23

24, 2017, the order was then re-served on plaintiff at Deuel Vocational Institution (“DVI”).

24

Thirty days from that date have now expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order

25

and has not filed the required documents.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be

26
27

dismissed without prejudice.

28

////
1

1

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

2

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

3

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

4

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

5

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

6

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

7

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

8

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

9

Dated: June 30, 2017

10
11
/davi0924.fifp

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