From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ardds v. Martin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 21, 2020
No. 2:20-cv-0133 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2020)

Opinion

No. 2:20-cv-0133 KJN P

04-21-2020

ANTOINE L. ARDDS, Plaintiff, v. KENNETH MARTIN, et al., Defendants.


ORDER AND FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

By order filed March 4, 2020, 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.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case; and

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 thirty 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). Dated: April 21, 2020

/s/_________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE /ardd0133/.fta


Summaries of

Ardds v. Martin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 21, 2020
No. 2:20-cv-0133 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2020)
Case details for

Ardds v. Martin

Case Details

Full title:ANTOINE L. ARDDS, Plaintiff, v. KENNETH MARTIN, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Apr 21, 2020

Citations

No. 2:20-cv-0133 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2020)