From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kinnard v. Runnels

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 27, 2006
No. CIV S-04-2472 FCD PAN P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2006)

Opinion

No. CIV S-04-2472 FCD PAN P.

February 27, 2006


FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS


By order filed March 11, 2005, plaintiff's complaint was dismissed and sixty days leave to file an amended complaint was granted. Sixty days passed and plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. On May 26, 2005, plaintiff was directed to file an amended complaint within ten days or his case would be dismissed without prejudice. That ten day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court's order.

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 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).


Summaries of

Kinnard v. Runnels

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 27, 2006
No. CIV S-04-2472 FCD PAN P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2006)
Case details for

Kinnard v. Runnels

Case Details

Full title:DONNELL KINNARD, Plaintiff, v. DAVID RUNNELS, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Feb 27, 2006

Citations

No. CIV S-04-2472 FCD PAN P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2006)