Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02171/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02171-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 160
Nature of Suit: Stockholder's Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE SMITH, SR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2171 GEB GGH PS

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed December 15, 2006, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty

days leave to file an amended complaint was granted. Plaintiff was also directed to submit either

a completed application and affidavit in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis or

the appropriate filing fee. In that order, the court informed plaintiff of the deficiencies in his

complaint. The thirty day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended

complaint, a completed in forma pauperis application, the filing fee, or otherwise responded to

the court’s order.

Plaintiff has apparently decided to rest on the dismissed complaint. For the

reasons given in the December 15, 2006, order, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this

action be dismissed with prejudice. 

\\\\\

Case 2:06-cv-02171-GEB-GGH Document 5 Filed 02/26/07 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 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 ten 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: 2/26/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:035

smit2171.fta

Case 2:06-cv-02171-GEB-GGH Document 5 Filed 02/26/07 Page 2 of 2