Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01730/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01730-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

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 

JESSE ANTOLIN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

REBEKAH LATHAM, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-1730-KJM-EFB PS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 On August 21, 2015, defendants moved to dismiss this action and noticed their motions 

for hearing on October 21, 2015. ECF Nos. 5, 6. Plaintiff failed to timely file an opposition to 

defendants’ motions. Accordingly, on October 19, 2015, the court continued the hearing on the 

motions to November 18, 2015, directed plaintiff to file an opposition or statement of nonopposition by November 4, 2015, and directed plaintiff to show cause, in writing by November 4, 

2015, why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to file an opposition or statement of 

non-opposition. ECF No. 15. Plaintiff was also admonished that failure to comply with the 

court’s order could result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of 

prosecution and/or for failure to comply with court orders and the court’s Local Rules. Id. 

///// 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:15-cv-01730-KJM-EFB Document 16 Filed 11/13/15 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

 The deadline has passed and plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of nonopposition to the pending motions, nor has he responded to the court’s November 18 order.1

 

 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, and that the 

Clerk be directed to close this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 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: November 13, 2015. 

 1

 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the order was returned, plaintiff 

was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current 

address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of 

the party is fully effective. 

Case 2:15-cv-01730-KJM-EFB Document 16 Filed 11/13/15 Page 2 of 2