From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Selck v. City of Sacramento

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 14, 2020
No. 2:19-cv-341-JAM-EFB PS (E.D. Cal. May. 14, 2020)

Opinion

No. 2:19-cv-341-JAM-EFB PS

05-14-2020

MORREY SELCK, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO, Defendant.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On March 24, 2020, the court granted defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF Nos. 19 & 20. The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, explained the deficiencies therein, and granted plaintiff thirty days in which to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies. Id. The time for acting has passed and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court's order. Thus, it appears that plaintiff is unwilling or unable to cure the defects in the complaint. ///// /////

Although it appears from the file that plaintiff's copy of the order was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. --------

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim as set forth in the court's March 24, 2020 order. ECF No. 20; see ECF No. 19.

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, any party 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." Any response to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: May 14, 2020.

/s/_________

EDMUND F. BRENNAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Selck v. City of Sacramento

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 14, 2020
No. 2:19-cv-341-JAM-EFB PS (E.D. Cal. May. 14, 2020)
Case details for

Selck v. City of Sacramento

Case Details

Full title:MORREY SELCK, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO, Defendant.

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

Date published: May 14, 2020

Citations

No. 2:19-cv-341-JAM-EFB PS (E.D. Cal. May. 14, 2020)