From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Davis v. Peterson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 29, 2020
No. 2:19-cv-2130 CKD P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 29, 2020)

Opinion

No. 2:19-cv-2130 CKD P

07-29-2020

JIM DALE DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. KIM PETERSON, et al., Defendants.


ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On March 16, 2020, plaintiff's complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff was warned that failure to file an amended complaint by the deadline for doing so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The deadline has passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court assign a district court judge to this case, and

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)(1). Within fourteen 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 waives the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: July 29, 2020

/s/_________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1
davi2130.fta


Summaries of

Davis v. Peterson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 29, 2020
No. 2:19-cv-2130 CKD P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 29, 2020)
Case details for

Davis v. Peterson

Case Details

Full title:JIM DALE DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. KIM PETERSON, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Jul 29, 2020

Citations

No. 2:19-cv-2130 CKD P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 29, 2020)