Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01360/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01360-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

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

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

complaint and advised plaintiff that failures to correct them might result in dismissal. Delay is

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUINTON PRUITT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1360 DFL GGH PS 

vs.

MARINE TERMINAL CORP., et al., 

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed August 24, 2005, the court granted plaintiff thirty days to file an

amended complaint. In the August 24, 2005 order, the court informed plaintiff of the

deficiencies in the complaint. The thirty day period expired, and plaintiff did not file an amended

complaint or otherwise respond to the court’s order. 

Accordingly, for the reasons given in the August 24, 2005, order, and for

plaintiff’s failure to present an amended complaint curing the defects of the original complaint as

explained therein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without

prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).1

Case 2:05-cv-01360-DFL-GGH Document 8 Filed 11/02/05 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

nearly always prejudicial to defendants. On the other hand, dismissal precludes adjudicating the

merits of plaintiff’s action. However, the court has considered less drastic sanctions, by issuing

its order explaining the defects in the complaint. Plaintiff’s failure to cure the complaint’s

defects leaves the court no choice. The court’s need to manage its docket does not permit further

devotion of scarce resources to the matter. See Malone v. United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d

128, 131-32 n.1 (9th Cir.1987). 

2

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

twenty 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. 

DATED: 11/01/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________________

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:mb

Pruitt1360.fta

Case 2:05-cv-01360-DFL-GGH Document 8 Filed 11/02/05 Page 2 of 2