From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Alem v. Barton

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 12, 2021
2:21-cv-0751 TLN KJN P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2021)

Opinion

2:21-cv-0751 TLN KJN P

08-12-2021

DANIEL ALEM, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT BURTON, et al., Defendants.


FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

KENDALL J. NEWMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

By order filed July 2, 2021, 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 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)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff 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.” 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).


Summaries of

Alem v. Barton

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 12, 2021
2:21-cv-0751 TLN KJN P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2021)
Case details for

Alem v. Barton

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL ALEM, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT BURTON, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Aug 12, 2021

Citations

2:21-cv-0751 TLN KJN P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2021)