Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02121/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02121-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY TAYLOR, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

NABORS INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Defendant.

 _________ _______________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

PREJUDICE

Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis with an action alleging a violation of the Family

Medical Leave Act, 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 complaint dismissed with leave to amend due

to the Plaintiff’s failure to state a viable claim. (Doc. 7). Plaintiff was granted 30 days leave in

which to file an amended complaint. (Id.) The order was served on Plaintiff on January 25,

2010. Although the time for filing the amended complaint has passed, Plaintiff has not filed an

amended complaint nor sought an extension of time within which to do so.

//

Case 1:09-cv-02121-AWI-JLT Document 8 Filed 03/01/10 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

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the Court recommends,

1. That the complaint (Doc. 3) be DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to state a

claim.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the

Local Rules for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen

(14) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the Court and

serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be filed within seven

(7) days after service of the objections. The District Judge will then review the Magistrate

Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Judge’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9 Cir. 1991). th

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2010 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:09-cv-02121-AWI-JLT Document 8 Filed 03/01/10 Page 2 of 2