From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Andrews v. Hafey

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 17, 2006
No. CIV S-01-1621 GEB GGH P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2006)

Opinion

No. CIV S-01-1621 GEB GGH P.

August 17, 2006


FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS


By order filed June 13, 2006, defendants' December 13, 2005, motion to dismiss was granted as to plaintiff's claims for money damages against defendants Lopez and Rodriguez, to the extent that he intended such claims to challenge the parole hold and parole revocation hearings in 1998, and those claims were dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days. 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 11-110; 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 twenty 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).


Summaries of

Andrews v. Hafey

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 17, 2006
No. CIV S-01-1621 GEB GGH P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2006)
Case details for

Andrews v. Hafey

Case Details

Full title:ANTOLIN ANDREWS, Plaintiff, v. TONI HAFEY, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Aug 17, 2006

Citations

No. CIV S-01-1621 GEB GGH P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2006)