-DAD (PS) Smith v. C.M.F. State Prison, et al, No. 2:2010cv02506 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/23/11 Recommending that this action be dismissed. These findings and recommendations will be submitted to U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the court. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
-DAD (PS) Smith v. C.M.F. State Prison, et al Doc. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KENNETH A. SMITH, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. CIV S-10-2506 KJM DAD PS vs. C.M.F. STATE PRISON, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 By order signed May 16, 2011, plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis 17 was denied without prejudice and plaintiff’s pro se complaint was dismissed with leave to file an 18 amended complaint that cured the defects noted in that order. Plaintiff was granted thirty days 19 from the date of the order to file an amended complaint and was cautioned that failure to respond 20 to the court’s order in a timely manner may result in a recommendation that this action be 21 dismissed. The thirty-day period has expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order 22 in any manner. 23 24 25 26 Accordingly, 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 will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file 2 written objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections 3 to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 4 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 5 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 DATED: June 23, 2011. 7 8 9 10 DAD:kw Ddad1\orders.pro se\smith2506.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.