From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Littleton v. Montiez

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 18, 2022
2:22-cv-1067 TLN AC P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2022)

Opinion

2:22-cv-1067 TLN AC P

10-18-2022

MICHAEL LITTLETON, Plaintiff, v. MARK MONTIEZ, et al., Defendants.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On August 25, 2022, the undersigned found that plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim for relief. ECF No. 9. As a result, plaintiff was directed to file an amended complaint and to do so within thirty days. Id. at 9. More than thirty days have passed, and plaintiff has neither filed an amended complaint, nor has he responded to the court's order in any way.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 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. 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).


Summaries of

Littleton v. Montiez

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 18, 2022
2:22-cv-1067 TLN AC P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2022)
Case details for

Littleton v. Montiez

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL LITTLETON, Plaintiff, v. MARK MONTIEZ, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Oct 18, 2022

Citations

2:22-cv-1067 TLN AC P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2022)