(PC) Humes v. Lee, No. 2:2018cv01110 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/16/2018 ORDERING the Clerk to assign a district judge to this case and RECOMMENDING this action be dismissed without prejudice. Assigned and referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JON HUMES, 12 No. 2:18-cv-1110 KJN P Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DETECTIVE G. LEE, 15 Defendant. 16 Plaintiff is a jail inmate, proceeding pro se. By order filed June 18, 2018, plaintiff was 17 18 ordered to show cause, within thirty days, why this action should not be dismissed without 19 prejudice to plaintiff filing an amended complaint in his prior case, No. 2:18-cv-0426 JAM CKD. 20 The thirty-day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not shown cause or otherwise responded 21 to the court’s order.1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to assign 22 23 a district judge to this case; and IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 24 25 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 26 1 27 28 On July 11, 2018, plaintiff filed a proposed order, but it pertained to plaintiff’s efforts to obtain a certified trust account statement in support of his application to proceed in forma pauperis, which was subsequently filed. (ECF Nos. 10, 11.) Neither of these filings addressed the court’s June 18, 2018 order. 1 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 3 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 4 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 5 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 6 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 7 (9th Cir. 1991). 8 Dated: August 16, 2018 9 10 /hume1110.fsc 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.
