(PS)Gates v. Amtrak, No. 2:2017cv01615 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/15/17 ORDERING that the 11/22/17 hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and the 1/17/18 Initial Conference are VACATED. Further, it is RECOMMENDED that t his Action 1 be dismissed for failure to prosecute and to comply with Court Orders and the Court's Local Rules. These FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS are submitted to U.S. District Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections to these F&Rs due within fourteen days. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
(PS)Gates v. Amtrak Doc. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NATHAN GATES, 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. 2:17-cv-1615-TLN-EFB PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION dba AMTRAK, a corporation, and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, Defendant. 18 19 Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint’s request for punitive damages pursuant 20 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and noticed the motion for hearing on September 20, 21 2017. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff failed to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to 22 the motion. Accordingly, the hearing was continued to November 22, 2017, and plaintiff was 23 ordered, by no later than November 8, 2017, to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition 24 to the motion and to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to timely file 25 an opposition or statement of non-opposition. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff was also admonished that 26 failure to file an opposition would be deemed a statement of non-opposition to the granting of 27 defendant’s motion and could result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of 28 prosecution and/or failure to comply with court orders and the court’s local rules. Id. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 The deadline has passed and plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of nonopposition to the pending motion, nor has he responded to the court’s order to show cause. 3 4 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the November 22, 2017 hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss and the January 17, 2018 Initial Scheduling Conference are vacated. 5 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and 6 to comply with court orders and the court’s local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Cal. E.D. L.R. 7 110. 8 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 9 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 10 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 11 with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 12 and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right 13 to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); 14 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 DATED: November 15, 2017. 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.