(PC) Spearman v. Department of State Hospitals, No. 2:2021cv01213 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 06/08/2022 RECOMMENDING that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations. (Rodriguez, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Spearman v. Department of State Hospitals Doc. 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REGINALD EDWARD SPEARMAN, 12 13 14 15 No. 2: 21-cv-1213 TLN KJN P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS STEPHANIE CLENDENIN, et al., Defendants. 16 17 By order filed May 18, 2022, plaintiff was ordered to show cause, within twenty-one days, 18 why his action should not be dismissed. The twenty-one day period has expired, and plaintiff has 19 not shown cause or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 20 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the order was returned, plaintiff 21 was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current 22 address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of 23 the party is fully effective. 24 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 26 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 27 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 28 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 2 and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within fourteen 3 days after service of the objections. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 4 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 5 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 Dated: June 8, 2022 7 8 9 /spea1213.fsc 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.
