-EFB (PS) Sutton v. Social Security Board et al, No. 2:2006cv01180 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 2/1/2011 recommending that this action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, for failure to prosecute, and for failure to comply with court orders; that Clerk be directed to close this case. Matter referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections to these findings and recommendations may be filed w/i 14 days. (Waggoner, D)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-EFB (PS) Sutton v. Social Security Board et al Doc. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 MICHAEL SUTTON, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 No. CIV S-06-1180 KJM EFB PS vs. SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD; and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, 13 14 Defendants. __________________________________/ FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to 15 16 Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On July 21, 17 2006, the court granted plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis but ordered plaintiff to 18 show cause, within twenty days, why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter 19 jurisdiction. Dckt. No. 3. The court explained that plaintiff “has provided no basis for federal 20 court jurisdiction,” and that plaintiff’s complaint “merely seeks copies of prior benefits checks 21 he was paid from SSI” which plaintiff may obtain from the Social Security Administration. Id. 22 23 The docket reveals that plaintiff never responded to the order to show cause. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 1. This action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, for failure to 24 25 prosecute, and for failure to comply with court orders; and 26 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2. The Clerk be directed to close this case. 2 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 3 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 4 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 5 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 6 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 7 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 8 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 9 DATED: February 1, 2011. 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.
