(PS)Rogers v. Richard et al, No. 2:2017cv00149 - Document 73 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 3/12/19 ORDERING that the 3/13/2019 status (pretrial scheduling) conference is VACATED and RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. Matter REFERRED to District Judge John A. Mendez. Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. (Kastilahn, A) Modified on 3/12/2019 (Kastilahn, A).

Download PDF
(PS)Rogers v. Richard et al Doc. 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KIM EDWARD ROGERS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. No. 2:17-cv-149-JAM-EFB PS ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WESLEY J. FISH, et al., Defendants. 16 17 On January 17, 2019, the court issued an order setting a status (pretrial scheduling) 18 conference for February 13, 2019, and directing the parties to file a status report within fourteen 19 days of the scheduled conference. Defendants timely filed a status report, but plaintiff failed to 20 do so. Accordingly, the status conference was continued, and plaintiff was ordered to show 21 cause, in writing, by no later than February 27, 2019, why sanctions should not be imposed for 22 failure to comply with the court’s January 17, 2019 order. ECF No. 72. Plaintiff was also 23 directed to file his status report by February 27, 2019. Id. Plaintiff was admonished that failure 24 to comply with the order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of 25 prosecution and/or failure to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 26 That deadline has passed and plaintiff has not filed his status report, nor has he otherwise 27 responded to the court’s order to show cause. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the 28 March 13, 2019, status (pretrial scheduling) conference is vacated. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 4 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 5 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 6 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 7 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 8 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 9 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 Dated: March 12, 2019. 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.