(PC) Taylor v. Barnes et al, No. 2:2008cv03013 - Document 20 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/26/09 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 20 days.(Dillon, M)

Download PDF
(PC) Taylor v. Barnes et al Doc. 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CHARLES TAYLOR, 11 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-3013 MCE DAD P vs. R. BARNES, et al., Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS / Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 17 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed March 31, 2009, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and he 18 was granted thirty days in which to file an amended complaint. On May 14, 2009, the court 19 issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed due to 20 plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint as directed. On July 20, 2009, the findings and 21 recommendations were vacated and plaintiff was granted an additional thirty days to file an 22 amended complaint. On September 4, 2009, plaintiff was granted yet another thirty days to file 23 an amended complaint. That period has now expired, and plaintiff has still not filed an amended 24 complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 25 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 2 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty 3 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 4 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 5 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 6 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 7 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 8 DATED: October 26, 2009. 9 10 11 12 DAD:lg tayl3013.fta(2) 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.