Vann v. Rimmer

Full title: CECIL A. VANN, Plaintiff, v. R. RIMMER, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Oct 31, 2005

CV F 04 5440 REC WMW P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2005)

Opinion

CV F 04 5440 REC WMW P.

October 31, 2005

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

WILLIAM WUNDERLICH, Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On March 25, 2005, the complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff failed to timely file an amended complaint and the court recommended dismissal. Prior to the entry of the recommendation of dismissal, plaintiff sought an extension of time to file an amended complaint. Accordingly the recommendation of dismissal was vacated, and plaintiff was granted an extension of time to July 5, 2005, in which to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). Within twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. 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 waives all objections to the judge's findings of fact. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9^th Cir. 1998). 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.