From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Aramark Food Services

United States District Court, E.D. California
Sep 1, 2011
No. CIV S-10-2769 KJM DAD P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 1, 2011)

Opinion

No. CIV S-10-2769 KJM DAD P.

September 1, 2011


FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS


By order filed July 18, 2011, plaintiff's complaint was dismissed and thirty days leave to file an amended complaint was granted. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The thirty day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court's order.

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. The 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).


Summaries of

Williams v. Aramark Food Services

United States District Court, E.D. California
Sep 1, 2011
No. CIV S-10-2769 KJM DAD P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 1, 2011)
Case details for

Williams v. Aramark Food Services

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS G. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. ARAMARK FOOD SERVICES, Defendants

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

Date published: Sep 1, 2011

Citations

No. CIV S-10-2769 KJM DAD P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 1, 2011)