Wagner v. Henry

Full title: GLORIA WAGNER, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN HENRY, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Oct 6, 2005

CV F 04 5594 REC WMW P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2005)

Opinion

CV F 04 5594 REC WMW P.

October 6, 2005

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

WILLIAM WUNDERLICH, Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

On July 5, 2005, the court recommended dismissal of this action for failure to state a claim for relief. The recommendation was based upon plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint in response to an earlier order dismissing the original complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations, and the court granted plaintiff thirty days within which to file an amended complaint. That thirty day period has passed, and plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or any other response.

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