(PC) Stonum v. Peery, No. 2:2020cv01992 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 12/21/2020 ORDERING Clerk to randomly assign a U.S. District Judge to this action and RECOMMENDING this action be dismissed without prejudice. Assigned and referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Stonum v. Peery Doc. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MELVIN STONUM, 11 No. 2:20-cv-1992-EFB P Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 SUSAN PEERY, 14 ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendant. 15 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 17 § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 18 § 636(b)(1). 19 On October 16, 2020, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915A. ECF No. 7. The court dismissed the complaint, explained the deficiencies therein, and 21 granted plaintiff thirty days in which to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies. Id. 22 The screening order warned plaintiff that failure to comply would result in a recommendation that 23 this action be dismissed. Plaintiff filed numerous “exhibits” following the court’s order (ECF 24 Nos. 10-13), but plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint. Accordingly, on November 23, 25 2020, the court granted plaintiff one final extension of time to comply with the October 16 order 26 and file an amended complaint. The time for acting has now passed and plaintiff has not filed an 27 amended complaint. Thus, it appears that plaintiff is unable or unwilling to cure the defects in the 28 complaint. 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 October 16, 2020 screening order (ECF No. 7). 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: December 21, 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.
