(PS) Ramos v. California Department of Fair Employment and Housing et al, No. 2:2017cv01610 - Document 25 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 5/9/18 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court's order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections due within 21 days after being served with these findings and recommendations.(Becknal, R)

Download PDF
(PS) Ramos v. California Department of Fair Employment and Housing et al Doc. 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEONARDO RAMOS, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 2:17-cv-01610 TLN AC (PS) Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING, et al., Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The action was accordingly referred to the 19 undersigned for pretrial matters by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21). On March 19, 2018, 20 the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. ECF No. 22. On March 20, 2018, 21 the court granted plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 23. Plaintiff was 22 cautioned that failure to do so could lead to a recommendation that the action be dismissed. 23 Plaintiff did not respond. On April 23, 2018 the court issued an order to show cause by May 7, 24 2018 why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 24. Plaintiff has 25 not respond to the court’s orders, nor taken any action to prosecute this case. 26 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without 27 prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court’s order. See Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one 3 (21) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 4 objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 5 Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 6 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 7 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 8 DATED: May 9, 2018 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.