Herrera v. Gardner

Full title: ARMANDO HERRERA, Plaintiff, v. GARDNER, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Jan 4, 2011

CIV S-10-1744 GEB EFB P (E.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2011)

Opinion

ARMANDO HERRERA, Plaintiff, v. GARDNER, et al., Defendants. No. CIV S-10-1744 GEB EFB P. United States District Court, E.D. California. January 4, 2011.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

          EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S. C. § 1983. On October 19, 2010, the court dismissed plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a cognizable claim. The dismissal order explained the complaint's deficiencies, gave plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint correcting those deficiencies, and warned plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

         The 30-day period has 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 for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S. C. § 1915A; 28 U.S. C. § 1915(g).

         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 fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party 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." Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).