Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02527/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02527-2/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

 On July 25, 2005, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Opening Statement.” However, 1

that document contains plaintiff’s theory of the case but does not address the requirements of

Local Rule 16-281 nor comply with the court’s February 10, 2005 scheduling order. Defendant

Shasta County Sheriff’s Department filed its pretrial statement on November 18, 2005.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DWAIN MIGUEL ARBO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2527 LKK PAN P

vs.

SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed February 10, 2005, this court directed plaintiff to file a pretrial

statement on or before November 4, 2005, and warned plaintiff that failure to file a pretrial

statement may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal with prejudice for failure

to prosecute or judgment by default. Plaintiff has not responded to the court's order. The court 1

will therefore recommend that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

16(f); Local Rule 11-110.

/////

Case 2:03-cv-02527-LKK -EFB Document 49 Filed 08/18/06 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

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without

prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f); Local Rule 11-110.

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 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.” 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: August 17, 2006.

/001; arbo2527.fpt

Case 2:03-cv-02527-LKK -EFB Document 49 Filed 08/18/06 Page 2 of 2