From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sneed v. S. Peery

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 6, 2015
No. 2:15-cv-0921 WBS CKD P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2015)

Opinion

No. 2:15-cv-0921 WBS CKD P

10-06-2015

DONNIE KAY SNEED, Plaintiff, v. S. PEERY, et al., Defendants.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

By order filed August 21, 2015, plaintiff's complaint was dismissed and thirty days leave to file an amended complaint was granted. The thirty day period has now expired, 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). Dated: October 6, 2015

/s/_________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1
snee0921.fta


Summaries of

Sneed v. S. Peery

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 6, 2015
No. 2:15-cv-0921 WBS CKD P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2015)
Case details for

Sneed v. S. Peery

Case Details

Full title:DONNIE KAY SNEED, Plaintiff, v. S. PEERY, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Oct 6, 2015

Citations

No. 2:15-cv-0921 WBS CKD P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2015)