Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02121/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02121-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY TAYLOR, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

NABOR INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Defendant.

 ____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:09-cv-2121-AWO-JLT

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING

COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis alleging a violation of the Family

Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) , 29 U.S.C. § 2612, et seq. The matter was referred to the

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 302 and 304.

On January 25, 2010, the Court ordered the dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint with leave

to amend. (Doc. 7). The order of dismissal was based upon Plaintiff’s failure to state an

actionable claim under the FMLA. (Id. at 3-4). Plaintiff was granted 30 days leave to file an

amended complaint. (Id. at 4). Plaintiff was warned that failure to file an amended complaint

within 30 days would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant to Local

Rule 110. (Id. at 5).

1

Case 1:09-cv-02121-AWI-JLT Document 9 Filed 03/24/10 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

On March 1, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations

recommending that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice, noting that although the time to

file an amended complaint had passed, Plaintiff had not filed an amended complaint or sought an

extension of time within which to do so. (Doc. 8). The findings and recommendations provided

14 days for any party to file written objections. Although Plaintiff was served by mail on March

1, 2010, he has not filed any objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley

United School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9 Cir. 1983), this Court has conducted a de novo th

review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the findings

and recommendation are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 1, 2010, are ADOPTED IN

FULL; and

2. The action IS DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted and for failure to comply with an order of this Court; and

3. The Clerk of Court IS DIRECTED to close this action because this order

terminates the action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-02121-AWI-JLT Document 9 Filed 03/24/10 Page 2 of 2