(PS) Sharp et al v. Powers et al, No. 2:2017cv00255 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2017)
Court Description: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 9/29/2017 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice; Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections due within 14 days after being served with these F & R's.(Reader, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHARP, CALYSTA, et al., 12 Plaintiffs, 13 14 No. 2:17-cv-0255 KJM DB PS v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS POWERS, TERESA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On May 3, 2017, the undersigned issued an order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint and 18 granting plaintiff twenty-eight days to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 3.) On June 14, 19 2017, plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 20 4.) On June 21, 2017, the undersigned issued an order granting plaintiff another twenty-eight 21 days to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 6.) On August 8, 2017, and September 5, 2017, plaintiff filed documents styled as a response 22 23 to an order to show cause. (ECF Nos. 7 & 8.) Those documents listed numerous cases filed by 24 plaintiff. However, no order to show cause issued in this action. The twenty-eight day period 25 granted June 21, 2017, has long since expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 1 2 3 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 4 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 5 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 6 objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to 7 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 8 objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal 9 the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 Dated: September 29, 2017 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 DLB:6 DB\orders\orders.pro se\sharp0255.fta.f&rs 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.
