(PC) Lopez v. Martel et al, No. 2:2009cv00925 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/6/10 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 21 days.(Dillon, M)

Download PDF
(PC) Lopez v. Martel et al Doc. 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RAFAEL LOPEZ, Plaintiff, 11 vs. 12 13 No. CIV S-09-0925 FCD KJM P MIKE MCDONALD, et al., Defendants. 14 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS / 15 By order filed September 18, 2009, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty 16 17 days leave to file an amended complaint was granted. The thirty day period has now expired, 18 and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed 20 without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 21 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 22 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty- 23 one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 24 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 25 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 26 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 2 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 DATED: January 6, 2010. 4 5 6 1 lope0925.fta 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.