From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shepherd v. Duffy

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 2, 2013
No. 2:13-cv-1138 TLN KJN P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2013)

Opinion

No. 2:13-cv-1138 TLN KJN P

2013-10-02

K. SHEPHERD, Plaintiff, v. BRIAN DUFFY, Warden, et al., Defendants.


FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

By order filed July 30, 2013, plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 13) 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 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).

____________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Shepherd v. Duffy

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 2, 2013
No. 2:13-cv-1138 TLN KJN P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2013)
Case details for

Shepherd v. Duffy

Case Details

Full title:K. SHEPHERD, Plaintiff, v. BRIAN DUFFY, Warden, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Oct 2, 2013

Citations

No. 2:13-cv-1138 TLN KJN P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2013)