From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Noel v. Manning

United States District Court, E.D. California
Oct 10, 2008
No. CIV S-07-2510 MCE DAD P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2008)

Opinion

No. CIV S-07-2510 MCE DAD P.

October 10, 2008


FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS


By order filed May 7, 2008, plaintiff's complaint was dismissed and thirty days leave to file an amended complaint was granted. On June 19, 2008, plaintiff was granted an additional sixty days to file an amended complaint. On August 25, 2008, plaintiff was granted yet an additional thirty days to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff was cautioned that no further extensions of time will be granted for this purpose and that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. That period has now 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 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)(1). Within twenty 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

Noel v. Manning

United States District Court, E.D. California
Oct 10, 2008
No. CIV S-07-2510 MCE DAD P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2008)
Case details for

Noel v. Manning

Case Details

Full title:DeFRANTZE LUCAS NOEL, Plaintiff, v. DON MANNING, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Oct 10, 2008

Citations

No. CIV S-07-2510 MCE DAD P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2008)