From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Licon v. Smiley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 15, 2017
No. 2: 17-cv-1063 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2017)

Opinion

No. 2: 17-cv-1063 KJN P

08-15-2017

FRANKIE LICON, Plaintiff, v. W. DAVID SMILEY, et al., Defendants.


ORDER & FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

By order filed July 7, 2013, 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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall appoint a district judge to this action; 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 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: August 15, 2017

/s/_________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Lic1063.fta


Summaries of

Licon v. Smiley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 15, 2017
No. 2: 17-cv-1063 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2017)
Case details for

Licon v. Smiley

Case Details

Full title:FRANKIE LICON, Plaintiff, v. W. DAVID SMILEY, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Aug 15, 2017

Citations

No. 2: 17-cv-1063 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2017)