Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02303/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02303-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 05:551 Administrative Procedure 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 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ABDO YAHRA MOHAMED, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:18-cv-2303-TLN-EFB PS 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint’s second cause of action pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and noticed the motion for hearing on December 18, 

2019. ECF No. 13. After plaintiff failed to timely respond to the motion, the hearing was 

continued and plaintiff was ordered, by no later than December 30, 2019, to file an opposition or 

statement of non-opposition to the motion. ECF No. 15. Plaintiff was also ordered to show cause 

why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to timely file an opposition or statement of 

non-opposition. Plaintiff was admonished that failure to file an opposition would be deemed a 

statement of non-opposition to the granting of defendant’s motion and could result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution and/or failure to comply 

with court orders and the court’s local rules. Id. 

 The deadline has passed and plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of nonopposition to the pending motion, nor has he responded to the court’s order to show cause. 

Case 2:18-cv-02303-TLN-EFB Document 17 Filed 01/09/20 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 

27 

28 

2 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the January 15, 2020 hearing on defendant’s 

motion to dismiss is vacated. 

 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and 

to comply with court orders and the court’s local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Cal. E.D. L.R. 

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 fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right 

to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: January 9, 2020. 

Case 2:18-cv-02303-TLN-EFB Document 17 Filed 01/09/20 Page 2 of 2