Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02173/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02173-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

MIGUEL ENRIQUE DIAZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW STAINER, et al.,

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-2173 JAM DB P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. On February 23, 2016, plaintiff filed a complaint regarding the denial of proper medical 

care. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff identified defendants Matthew Stainer, Dr. Bick, Dr. Ditomas, Dr. 

Dhillon, and Dr. McAllister as the defendants in this action. On May 3, 2016, the complaint was 

dismissed and plaintiff was given the opportunity to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 15.) 

On June 16, 2016, plaintiff was granted a 30-day extension of time to file that amended 

complaint. (ECF No. 19.) On September 1, 2016, plaintiff was granted a second 30-day 

extension of time to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 23.) In that order, plaintiff was 

warned that failure to file an amended complaint within 30 days would result in a 

recommendation that this case be dismissed. (Id.) Thirty days have expired. Plaintiff has not 

filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

////

Case 2:15-cv-02173-JAM-DB Document 24 Filed 10/11/16 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

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 are 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 

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

with the court. The document should be captioned “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. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 

(9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: October 7, 2016

DLB:9

DLB1/prisoner-civil rights/Diaz2173.fta ext

Case 2:15-cv-02173-JAM-DB Document 24 Filed 10/11/16 Page 2 of 2