From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Strand v. Lizzaraga

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 7, 2020
No. 2:18-cv-2624 MCE DB P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2020)

Opinion

No. 2:18-cv-2624 MCE DB P

07-07-2020

RICHARD LEE STRAND, Plaintiff, v. JOE A. LIZZARAGA, et al., Defendants.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. For the reasons stated below, the undersigned shall recommend that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and for failure to obey a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110.

By order issued May 4, 2020, plaintiff's complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. (See ECF No. 10). At that time, he was given sixty days either to amend the complaint or to inform the court that he wished to proceed only on the cognizable claims identified in the court's screening order. (See id. at 17).

More than sixty days have now passed, and plaintiff has neither filed an amended complaint, nor informed the court that he wishes to proceed on the identified cognizable claims, nor otherwise responded to the court's order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and for failure to obey a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110.

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 thirty 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: July 7, 2020

/s/_________

DEBORAH BARNES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DLB:13
DB/ORDERS/ORDERS.PRISONER.CIVIL RIGHTS/stra2624.fta


Summaries of

Strand v. Lizzaraga

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 7, 2020
No. 2:18-cv-2624 MCE DB P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2020)
Case details for

Strand v. Lizzaraga

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD LEE STRAND, Plaintiff, v. JOE A. LIZZARAGA, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Jul 7, 2020

Citations

No. 2:18-cv-2624 MCE DB P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2020)