Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00493/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00493-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERESA SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

STOCKTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, et 

al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-0493 KJM DB PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

By order signed July 22, 2016, plaintiff’s second amended complaint was dismissed and 

plaintiff was granted leave to file a third amended complaint that cured the defects noted in that 

order. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff was granted thirty days from the date of service of the order to file 

a third amended complaint and was specifically cautioned that the failure to respond to the court’s 

order in a timely manner would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The 

thirty-day period has long since expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order in 

any manner.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 

prejudice. See Local Rule 110; FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

Case 2:16-cv-00493-KJM-DB Document 12 Filed 10/18/16 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within 

the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 

951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: October 17, 2016

DLB:6

DLB1\orders.pro se\smith0493.fta.f&rs

Case 2:16-cv-00493-KJM-DB Document 12 Filed 10/18/16 Page 2 of 2