(PC)Davis v. Shaw et al, No. 2:2008cv02161 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 1/14/09 Recommending that this Action be dismissed without prejudice. These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to U.S. District Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. Within twenty days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC)Davis v. Shaw et al Doc. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BRYAN DAVIS, SR., 11 12 13 14 Plaintiff, vs. DAVID R. SHAW, et al., Defendants. 15 16 No. 2:08-cv-2161 FCD JFM (PC) FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS / By order filed November 19, 2008, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty 17 days leave to file an amended complaint was granted. On December 1, 2008, plaintiff filed a 18 notice stating he declined to file an amended complaint. On December 17, 2008, plaintiff was 19 granted an additional thirty days to amend the complaint and was warned that should he fail to 20 amend the complaint, or again decline to amend the complaint, the court would recommend 21 dismissal of the instant action. On December 29, 2008, plaintiff filed a second notice that he 22 declined to amend his complaint. 23 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 25 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 26 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 2 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 3 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 4 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 5 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 DATED: January 14, 2009. 7 8 9 10 /001; davi2161.fta 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.
