From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sermeno v. Irmer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 22, 2017
No. 2: 17-cv-0745 GEB KJN P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2017)

Opinion

No. 2: 17-cv-0745 GEB KJN P

08-22-2017

LARRY A. SERMENO, Plaintiff, v. M. IRMER, et a., Defendants.


FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

By order filed July 13, 2017, plaintiff was granted thirty days to file an amended complaint. Thirty days from that date have now passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, or otherwise responded to the court's order. The July 13, 2017 order warned plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint would result in a recommendation of dismissal of this action.

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)(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 22, 2017

/s/_________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Ser745.fta


Summaries of

Sermeno v. Irmer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 22, 2017
No. 2: 17-cv-0745 GEB KJN P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2017)
Case details for

Sermeno v. Irmer

Case Details

Full title:LARRY A. SERMENO, Plaintiff, v. M. IRMER, et a., Defendants.

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

Date published: Aug 22, 2017

Citations

No. 2: 17-cv-0745 GEB KJN P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2017)