From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Salcido v. Sisto

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 13, 2012
No. 2:11-cv-00611 LKK KJN P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2012)

Opinion

No. 2:11-cv-00611 LKK KJN P

03-13-2012

MARTIN SALCIDO, Plaintiff, v. D.K. SISTO, Warden, et al., Defendants.


FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

By order filed February 6, 2012, plaintiff's complaint was dismissed and thirty days leave to file an amended complaint as to defendant Conrad was granted. The thirty day 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 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." Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. 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).

____________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
salc0611.fta


Summaries of

Salcido v. Sisto

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 13, 2012
No. 2:11-cv-00611 LKK KJN P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2012)
Case details for

Salcido v. Sisto

Case Details

Full title:MARTIN SALCIDO, Plaintiff, v. D.K. SISTO, Warden, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Mar 13, 2012

Citations

No. 2:11-cv-00611 LKK KJN P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2012)