Opinion
No. 2:18-cv-00150 JAM AC (PS)
08-22-2018
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiffs are proceeding in this action pro se. The action was accordingly referred to the undersigned for pretrial matters by E.D. Cal. R. ("Local Rule") 302(c)(21). On July 3, 2018, the court dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims; some claims were dismissed with prejudice and others with limited leave to amend. ECF No. 85. By separate minute order, the court gave plaintiffs until August 2, 2018 to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 86. Plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint or otherwise respond. On July 25, 2018 plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal in the Ninth Circuit. ECF No. 88. On August 6, 2018 the court issued an order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 91. The court specifically noted that plaintiffs' pending appeal did not relieve plaintiffs of their obligation to file an amended complaint. Id. at 1. Plaintiffs were required to respond by August 20, 2018. Plaintiffs have not responded to the court's orders, nor taken any action to prosecute this case. ////
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court's order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one (21) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. Such document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Local Rule 304(d). 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: August 22, 2018
/s/_________
ALLISON CLAIRE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE