-EFB (PC) Haney v. Woods, No. 2:2011cv02196 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 04/23/12 recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to state a claim. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
-EFB (PC) Haney v. Woods Doc. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MONTE L. HANEY, Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS vs. 12 13 No. CIV S-11-2196 JAM EFB P Defendant. 11 T. WOODS, 14 / 15 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 16 17 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 18, 2012, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state 18 a cognizable claim. The dismissal order explained the complaint’s deficiencies, gave plaintiff 30 19 days to file an amended complaint correcting those deficiencies, and warned plaintiff that failure 20 to file an amended complaint would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for 21 failure to state a claim. The 30-day period has expired and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or 22 23 otherwise responded to the court’s order. 24 //// 25 //// 26 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and failure to state a claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 4 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 5 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 6 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 7 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 8 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 9 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 Dated: April 23, 2012. 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.