From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Anderson v. Arnold

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 2, 2015
No. 2:14-cv-2660 AC P (TEMP) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2015)

Opinion

No. 2:14-cv-2660 AC P (TEMP)

12-02-2015

CORNELIUS ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. ERIC ARNOLD et al., Defendants.


ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

By order filed October 20, 2015, plaintiff's complaint was dismissed and thirty days leave to file an amended complaint was granted. Thirty days from that date have now passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court's order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). DATED: December 2, 2015

/s/_________

ALLISON CLAIRE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Anderson v. Arnold

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 2, 2015
No. 2:14-cv-2660 AC P (TEMP) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2015)
Case details for

Anderson v. Arnold

Case Details

Full title:CORNELIUS ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. ERIC ARNOLD et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Dec 2, 2015

Citations

No. 2:14-cv-2660 AC P (TEMP) (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2015)