Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01605/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01605-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

MARJON ROW,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1605 FCD PAN (GGH) PS

vs.

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY

PATROL, FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendant.

 /

By order filed April 21, 2006, plaintiff was granted twenty days to file a complaint

that conforms with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) and E. D. Cal. L. R. 5-133(b)(2). That order represented

the third opportunity this court has given plaintiff to file an acceptable complaint in lieu of the

box of documents and CD she has submitted over the past several months. The twenty-day

period set forth in the April 21, 2006 order has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed a

complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

Accordingly, for the reasons given in the court’s findings and recommendations

filed November 10, 2005, and orders filed Febraury 13, 2006, March 8, 2006, and April 21,

2006, and for plaintiff’s failure to respond to the court’s April 21, 2006 order, IT IS HEREBY 

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:05-cv-01605-FCD-PAN Document 21 Filed 06/21/06 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

 The court has given consideration to plaintiff’s status as a pro se litigant. Ferdik v. 1

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992). The court has repeatedly explained the defects in

plaintiff’s submissions and advised plaintiff that failure to correct them might result in dismissal. 

2

RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed.

R. Civ. P. 41(b).1

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the Honorable Frank C.

Damrell, Jr., the United States District Judge assigned to this 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: 6/20/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOW6: ROW.F&R.fta

Case 2:05-cv-01605-FCD-PAN Document 21 Filed 06/21/06 Page 2 of 2