Gomez v. CDCR et al

Filing 68

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/27/2020 ORDERING Defendants are relieved from filing a pretrial statement; VACATING the pretrial conference set for 6/13/2020; and RECOMMENDING this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 30 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EDWARD GOMEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2: 17-cv-1247 JAM KJN P

v.

ORDER AND FINDINGS &
RECOMMENDATIONS

CDCR, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

By order filed February 28, 2020, this court directed plaintiff to file a pretrial statement on

18

or before May 16, 2020. Plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order. The court will therefore

19

recommend that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f); Local Rule

20

110.

21

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

22

1. Defendants are relieved from filing a pretrial statement.

23

2. The pretrial conference set for June 13, 2020, is vacated; and

24

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See

25
26

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f); Local Rule 110.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

27

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

28

being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with
1

1

the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

2

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be

3

filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that

4

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

5

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

6

Dated: May 27, 2020

7
8
9
10
11
Gom1247.fpt

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