(PC) Kenyatta Latchison v. R. Lopez, Warden, No. 1:2011cv01280 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending to Dismiss 1 Action without Prejudice for Failure to Respond to the Court's Order signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 12/14/2011. Referred to Judge Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 1/3/2012. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Kenyatta Latchison v. R. Lopez, Warden Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 KENYATTA LATCHISON, CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01280-AWI-GBC (PC) 10 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING TO DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO RESPOND TO THE COURT’S ORDER Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 R. LOPEZ, (Doc. 5; Doc. 6) 13 RESPONSE DUE IN 15 DAYS 14 Defendant. / 15 16 On August 4, 2011, the Court issued an Order Re Consent or Request for Reassignment, 17 requiring Plaintiff to complete and return the form within thirty (30) days, indicating either consent 18 to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Magistrate Judge, or requesting that the case be reassigned to a U.S. 19 District Judge. On September 19, 2011, the Court issued a second order requiring Plaintiff to 20 complete and return the form within thirty (30) days, indicating either consent to the jurisdiction of 21 the U.S. Magistrate Judge, or requesting that the case be reassigned to a U.S. District Judge. The 22 thirty-day period has expired, and petitioner has not returned the form, or otherwise responded to the 23 Court's order. On November 10, 2011, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to why 24 Plaintiff’s action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s order. Doc. 6. To 25 date, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause. 26 Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these [Local] 27 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 28 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Such sanctions can include dismissal of this 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 action. See In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226-27 2 (9th Cir. 2006). 3 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that: Plaintiff’s action filed 4 August 3, 2011, be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with a court order. 5 Doc. 1. 6 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 7 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fifteen (15) 8 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written 9 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's 10 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 11 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 12 1153 (9th Cir.1991). 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: 0jh02o December 14, 2011 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.
