(PS) Gunter-Ritter et al v. Robarts Properties, LP, No. 2:2018cv01465 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 9/6/2018 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 Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 21 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (York, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Gunter-Ritter et al v. Robarts Properties, LP Doc. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 MADISON GUNTER-RITTER and NATHAN VAZQUEZ, Plaintiffs, 13 14 15 16 No. 2:18-cv-01465 KJM AC (PS) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. ROBARTS PROPERTIES, LP, Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiffs are 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 June 13, 2018, the 20 court notified plaintiffs that mail sent to them had been returned as undeliverable and that they 21 must update their address by August 20, 2018. ECF No. 3. That deadline passed without 22 response from plaintiffs. On August 22, 2018 the court issued an order to show cause within 14 23 days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 4. That order was 24 also returned to the court as undeliverable, and plaintiffs did not respond. Plaintiffs have not 25 updated their address, responded 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 (21) 3 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: September 6, 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.
