From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. Builders

United States District Court, E.D. California
Sep 16, 2011
No. CIV. S-11-0841 JAM GGH PS (E.D. Cal. Sep. 16, 2011)

Opinion

No. CIV. S-11-0841 JAM GGH PS.

September 16, 2011


FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS


By order filed July 6, 2011, plaintiff's complaint was dismissed and twenty-eight days leave to file an amended complaint was granted. In that order, the court informed plaintiff of the deficiencies in his complaint. The twenty-eight day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court's order.

Plaintiff has apparently decided to rest on the dismissed complaint. For the reasons given in the July 6, 2011, order, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed with 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)(1). Within fourteen 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).

DATED: September 15, 2011


Summaries of

Johnson v. Builders

United States District Court, E.D. California
Sep 16, 2011
No. CIV. S-11-0841 JAM GGH PS (E.D. Cal. Sep. 16, 2011)
Case details for

Johnson v. Builders

Case Details

Full title:JAMES JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. SWINERTON BUILDERS, Defendants

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

Date published: Sep 16, 2011

Citations

No. CIV. S-11-0841 JAM GGH PS (E.D. Cal. Sep. 16, 2011)