(PC) Vandenburgh v. Aramark et al, No. 2:2010cv00612 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/23/10 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Becknal, R)

Download PDF
(PC) Vandenburgh v. Aramark et al Doc. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARK J. VANDENBURGH, 11 Plaintiff, 12 No. 2:10-cv-0612 JAM KJN P vs. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 13 ARAMARK, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 / 16 By order filed June 11, 2010, plaintiff’s amended complaint was dismissed and 17 thirty days leave to file a second amended complaint was granted. The thirty-day period has now 18 expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s 19 order. 20 21 22 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 23 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 24 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 25 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 26 Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 within fourteen days after service of the objections. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 2 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 3 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 DATED: July 23, 2010 5 6 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 vand0612.fta 9 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.