(PS) Padilla v. United States Patent Office et al., No. 2:2016cv02631 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 6/6/2017 RECOMMENDING that this case be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order; REFERRING this matter to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.;ORDERING that any objections be filed within twenty-one (21) days. (Michel, G.)

Download PDF
(PS) Padilla v. United States Patent Office et al. Doc. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIA D. PADILLA, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 2:16-cv-02631-GEB-AC (PS) Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE, et al., Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the 19 undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). On November 28, 2016, this Court issued an Order 20 dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint and allowing Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint. 21 ECF No. 3. The Court warned that failure to file an amended complaint may result in a 22 recommendation by the undersigned that this action be dismissed. Id. Plaintiff’s 30 days has 23 long since passed, and she has not filed an amended complaint or taken any other action in this 24 25 26 27 28 case. Because Plaintiff failed to comply with this Court’s order, the undersigned recommends that this case be DISMISSED. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one (21) 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 2 objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 3 Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 4 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 5 6 7 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). DATED: June 6, 2017 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 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.