(PS) Blank v. Starbucks et al, No. 2:2016cv02777 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 6/16/17 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the Court's order re 1 Complaint. These Findings and Recommendations are submitted U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez; Objections to these F&R due within twenty-one days. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
(PS) Blank v. Starbucks 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 PAUL BLANK, 12 13 14 No. 2:16-cv-2777 JAM AC PS Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS STARBUCKS, LOAVES AND FISHES, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The action was accordingly referred to the 18 undersigned for pretrial matters by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21). On November 29, 19 2016, the court dismissed the complaint, and granted plaintiff 30 days to file an amended 20 complaint. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to do so could lead to a 21 recommendation that the action be dismissed. Plaintiff has not responded to the court’s orders, 22 nor taken any action to prosecute this case. 23 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without 24 prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court’s order. See Fed. R. 25 Civ. P. 41(b). 26 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 27 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one 28 (21) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 2 Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(b). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 3 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 4 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 DATED: June 16, 2017 6 7 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.