-CKD (PS) Augustine v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al, No. 2:2011cv01834 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/13/11 ORDERING that the 11/2/11 hearing date on defendants' motion to dismiss is VACATED. It is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed pursuant to Fede ral Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), based on plaintiff's failure to prosecute the action and to comply with court orders and Local Rules; Defendants' 8 motion to dismiss be denied as moot; and the Clerk be directed to close this case. Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. (Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF
-CKD (PS) Augustine v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al Doc. 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 THOMAS AUGUSTINE, 11 12 Plaintiff, CIV. NO. S-11-1834 JAM CKD PS vs. 13 JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al., 14 Defendants. 15 ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned 17 pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On 18 August 16, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The motion was noticed to be heard on 19 September 21, 2011. 20 On September 7, 2011, because plaintiff had not filed either an opposition or a 21 statement of non-opposition to the motion, but requested an extension of time to file opposition, 22 the undersigned continued the hearing on the motion to dismiss and directed plaintiff to file an 23 opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than October 12, 24 2011. Plaintiff was advised that failure to file an opposition would be deemed a statement of 25 non-opposition to the pending motion and would result in a recommendation that this action be 26 dismissed. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Although the deadline for filing opposition has now passed, the court docket 2 reflects that plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion or a statement of non-opposition to 3 the motion. In light of plaintiff’s failure to file opposition, the undersigned will recommend that 4 this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute the action and for failure to comply with court 5 orders and Local Rules, and that defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied as moot. See Fed. R. 6 Civ. P. 41(b); L.R. 110. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The hearing date of November 2, 2011 on defendants’ motion to dismiss is 9 vacated; and 10 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 11 1. This action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), 12 based on plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the action and to comply with court orders and Local 13 Rules; 14 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 8) be denied as moot; and 15 3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 16 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 17 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 18 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 19 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 20 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 21 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 22 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 Dated: October 13, 2011 24 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 4 - augustine.nop.57 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.