(PS) Vang v. v. Hudson, et al.,, No. 2:2009cv01621 - Document 50 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, recommending that action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution and as a sanction for failure comply with Court Order and applicable rules, signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/7/2010. Any Objections must be submitted and served w/in 14 days after F/Rs were filed. (Marciel, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Vang v. v. Hudson, et al., Doc. 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MAI VANG, No. CIV S-09-1621 MCE DAD PS 11 12 Plaintiff, v. 13 LUELLA HUDSON, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS / This matter came before the court on June 4, 2010 at 11:00 a.m. for a Status 17 (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference. No appearance was made by plaintiff, who is proceeding pro 18 se in this action. R. Duane Skelton, Esq. appeared as counsel for defendant Luella Hudson. 19 On April 6, 2010, the court’s order setting the status conference was filed and 20 served by the court on each party who has appeared in this case and has not been dismissed. The 21 order provides that “[e]ach party shall appear at the Status Conference either by counsel or, if 22 proceeding in propria persona, on his or her own behalf.” Order Setting Status (Pretrial 23 Scheduling) Conference (Doc. No. 43) at 2. The order also provides that “[p]laintiff Vang shall 24 file and serve a status report on or before May 21, 2010.” Id. Plaintiff was advised that 25 26 the failure to file a timely status report or the failure to appear at the status conference, either in person or telephonically, may result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed for lack of 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 prosecution and as a sanction for failure to comply with court orders and applicable rules. See Local Rules 110 and 183. 2 3 Id. at 3. The court recently reminded plaintiff of her obligations to file a status report and appear 4 at the status conference on June 4, 2010. See Order filed May 18, 2010 (Doc. No. 48) at1-2 & 5 n.1. In direct violation of the court’s orders, plaintiff failed to fail a status report and failed to 6 appear at the status conference. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed 8 without prejudice for lack of prosecution and as a sanction for failure to comply with court orders 9 and applicable rules. 10 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States 11 District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Any 12 objections to these findings and recommendations must be in submitted in writing and must be 13 filed and served within fourteen (14) days after these findings and recommendations are filed. A 14 document containing objections should be titled “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 15 Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 16 appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 DATED: June 7, 2010. 18 19 20 21 DAD:kw DDad1\orders.prose\vang1621.oasc.f&r 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.
