Ransom et al v. Mack et al

Filing 5

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 8/24/17 Recommending that this action re 1 Complaint be dismissed without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with the court's order. These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to U.S. District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Objections to these F&Rs due within twenty-one (21) days.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CLINTON RANSOM,

12
13

No. 2:17-cv-01367 GEB AC (PS)

Plaintiff,
v.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

14

MICHAEL MACK JR., et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

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

18

undersigned for pretrial matters by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21). On July 7, 2017, the

19

court dismissed the complaint, denied his application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), and

20

granted plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint and renewed IFP application. ECF No. 3.

21

After plaintiff failed to submit an amended complaint or IFP application, the court issued an order

22

to show cause within 14 days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF

23

No. 4. Plaintiff has taken no further action in this case.

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one
1

1

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

2

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

3

Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

4

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.

5

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

6

DATED: August 24, 2017

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2