(PS) Ortiz v. Diversified Consultants, Inc. et al, No. 2:2017cv00590 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2017)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 11/20/2017 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court's order. Referred to District Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 21 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (York, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Ortiz v. Diversified Consultants, Inc. et al Doc. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RENE ORTIZ, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 2:17-cv-0590 TLC AC PS v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS, INC., et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The action was accordingly referred to the 18 19 undersigned for pretrial matters by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21). On July 28, 2017, the 20 court dismissed the complaint, and granted plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint. ECF 21 No. 3. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to do so could lead to a recommendation that the action 22 be dismissed. On August 25, 2017, plaintiff requested a 60-day extension of time to file his first 23 amended complaint in order to “seek legal advice and/or obtain legal representation.” ECF No. 4. 24 On August 29, 2017, this court granted the extension. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff did not respond. On November 2, 2017, the court issued an order to show cause why this case should not 25 26 be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff has not responded to the court’s 27 orders, nor taken any action to prosecute this case. 28 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without 2 prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court’s order. See Fed. R. 3 Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110. 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 5 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one 6 (21) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 7 objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 8 Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 9 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 10 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 DATED: November 20, 2017. 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.
