Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00655/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00655-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:0157(c)(1) Findings, Concl. &amp; Proposed Judgment

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TUYEN NGUYEN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0655 LKK KJM PS

vs.

DAVID MARTIN,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By minute order filed May 23, 2005, this action was referred to the undersigned

for pretrial case management and all hearing dates before the district judge were vacated. Under

the status order filed June 9, 2004, the discovery and law and motion cut-offs had already passed

at the time this action was referred to the undersigned. The matter was therefore set for status

conference and the parties were directed to file status reports one week prior to the conference.

Plaintiff failed to appear at the status conference and failed to file a status report. 

Since the time plaintiff’s counsel withdrew and plaintiff was substituted in pro per in May 2005,

the file reflects no activity by plaintiff. It appears plaintiff has abandoned this litigation.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for

lack of prosecution, without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00655-LKK -KJM Document 44 Filed 10/17/05 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

2

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

twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file

written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the

objections shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties

are 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 17, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

006

nguyen.57

Case 2:04-cv-00655-LKK -KJM Document 44 Filed 10/17/05 Page 2 of 2