(PC)Lawyer v. Solano County, No. 2:2018cv02999 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 04/15/20 ORDERING the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a U.S. District Judge to this action. Also, RECOMMENDING that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice for the reasons set forth in the March 10, 2020 screening order 10 . Assigned and referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC)Lawyer v. Solano County Doc. 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MARK ANTHONY LAWYER, SR., 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. 2:18-cv-2999-EFB P v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SOLANO COUNTY, 14 Defendant. 15 16 Plaintiff is a Solano County jail inmate proceeding without counsel in an action brought 17 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant 18 to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 19 On March 10, 2020, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915A. ECF No. 10. The court dismissed the complaint, explained the deficiencies therein, 21 and granted plaintiff thirty days in which to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies. 22 Id. The screening order warned plaintiff that failure to comply would result in a recommendation 23 that this action be dismissed. The time for acting has now passed and plaintiff has not filed an 24 amended complaint.1 Thus, it appears that plaintiff is unable or unwilling to cure the defects in 25 the complaint. 26 1 27 28 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the order was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. Further, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice for the reasons set forth in the March 10, 2020 screening order (ECF No. 10). 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 6 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 7 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 8 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 9 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 10 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 11 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 12 appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 13 v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 Dated: April 15, 2020. 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.
