(PS) Bernhard et al v. County of San Joaquin et al
Filing
28
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 05/22/2023 DENYING 27 Motion to Dismiss without prejudice to renewal as having been rendered moot; VACATING the 05/26/2023 Motion Hearing; RECOMMENDING that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice. Referred to District Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due 14 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations. (Rodriguez, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
LLOYD THOMAS BERNARD, II;
STEPHANIE CELESTE TEJADAOTERO,
13
14
15
16
Plaintiffs,
v.
No. 2:21-cv-00948 TLN DB PS
ORDER AND
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, et al.,
Defendants.
17
18
Plaintiffs Lloyd Thomas Bernard and Stephanie Celeste Tejada-Otero are proceeding in
19
this action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule
20
302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On December 23, 2022, the undersigned dismissed
21
plaintiffs’ complaint and granted plaintiffs leave to amend and to properly serve the defendants.
22
(ECF No. 22.) On January 19, 2023, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a 45-day extension of time
23
to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 23.) On March 8, 2023, the undersigned granted
24
plaintiffs’ request and ordered plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within 28 days. (ECF No.
25
25.) The twenty-eight-day period has expired, and plaintiffs have not responded to the court’s
26
order in any manner.
27
28
Moreover, on April 18, 2023, defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute
and noticed the motion for hearing before the undersigned on May 26, 2023. (ECF No. 27.)
1
1
Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), plaintiffs were to file an opposition, if any, within 14 days after
2
being served with the motion. The 14-day period has passed, and plaintiffs have not filed an
3
opposition. In this regard, plaintiffs have failed to prosecute this action.
4
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
5
1. Defendants’ April 18, 2023 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 27) is denied without
6
prejudice to renewal as having been rendered moot 1; and
7
2. The May 26, 2023 hearing of defendants’ motion is vacated.
8
Also, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice.
9
See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
10
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
11
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
12
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
13
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
14
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections
15
shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are
16
advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the
17
District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
18
DATED: May 22, 2023
19
/s/ DEBORAH BARNES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DLB:6
DB\orders\orders.pro se\bernhard0948.dlop.f&rs
1
In the event these findings and recommendations are not adopted in full defendants may renotice the motion to dismiss for hearing before the undersigned.
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?