Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00650/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00650-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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 

DAVID MARSHALL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SEAN ARMACHER, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-0650 MCE AC (PS) 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The action was accordingly referred to the 

undersigned by E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(21). 

 On August 12, 2016, defendant filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff failed to 

respond to the motion. On September 2, 2016, the court ordered plaintiff to respond to the 

dismissal motion no later than September 21, 2016, or suffer a recommendation that the action be 

dismissed. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff has not responded to the dismissal motion or to the court’s order. 

 Therefore, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the October 5, 2016 

hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 4), is VACATED. 

 Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 

prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. 

 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 twenty one days 

Case 2:16-cv-00650-MCE-AC Document 8 Filed 09/30/16 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

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within 

fourteen days after service of the objections. 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: September 29, 2016 

Case 2:16-cv-00650-MCE-AC Document 8 Filed 09/30/16 Page 2 of 2