From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sisco v. McDonald

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 19, 2016
No. 2:16-cv-1519 JAM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2016)

Opinion

No. 2:16-cv-1519 JAM KJN P

10-19-2016

ERIC M. SISCO, Plaintiff, v. M.D. McDONALD, et al., Defendants.


FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

By order filed September 13, 2016, 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 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, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any response to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The //// parties are 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: October 19, 2016

/s/_________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE /sisc1519.fta


Summaries of

Sisco v. McDonald

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 19, 2016
No. 2:16-cv-1519 JAM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2016)
Case details for

Sisco v. McDonald

Case Details

Full title:ERIC M. SISCO, Plaintiff, v. M.D. McDONALD, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Oct 19, 2016

Citations

No. 2:16-cv-1519 JAM KJN P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2016)