(PC) Smith v. Miller, No. 2:2015cv02534 - Document 66 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 12/21/21 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with court orders and failure to state a claim for the reasons set forth in the 8/17/21 order 63 . The clerk of court be directed to close the case. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days.(Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES ANTHONY SMITH, 12 13 14 15 16 17 Plaintiff, v. SISKIYOU COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants. Case No. 2:15-cv-02534-TLN-JDP (PC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS, AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS On August 17, I screened plaintiff’s second amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1915A. ECF No. 63. I notified plaintiff that it failed state a claim and granted him sixty days 19 to file an amended complaint. Id. Plaintiff failed to timely file an amended complaint. 20 Accordingly, on November 9, 2021, I ordered him to show cause within twenty-one days why 21 this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to state a claim. ECF No. 22 65. I notified him that if he wished to continue with this lawsuit, he must file an amended 23 complaint. I also warned him that failure to comply with the November 9 order would result in a 24 recommendation that this action be dismissed. Id. 25 26 The deadline has passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint nor otherwise responded to the November 9, 2021 order. Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 27 28 1 1 1. This action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with court orders, 2 and failure to state a claim for the reasons set forth in the August 17, 2021 order. See ECF No. 3 63. 4 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case. 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 6 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 7 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 8 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 9 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 10 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 11 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 12 appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 13 v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 17 Dated: December 21, 2021 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.