Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01122/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01122-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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 

AMOS GBEINTOR, SR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:16-cv-1122 KJM GGH PS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

By order filed July 7, 2016, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and twenty-eight days 

leave to file an amended complaint and an in forma pauperis application or pay the filing fee was 

granted. In that order, the court informed plaintiff of the deficiencies in his complaint. The 

twenty-eight day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, an in 

forma pauperis application or paid the filing fee, or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 

 Plaintiff has apparently decided to rest on the dismissed complaint. For the reasons given 

in the July 7, 2016, order, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed with 

prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

 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. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

Case 2:16-cv-01122-KJM-GGH Document 4 Filed 08/10/16 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

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 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: August 10, 2016 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

GGH:076/Gbeintor1122.fta 

Case 2:16-cv-01122-KJM-GGH Document 4 Filed 08/10/16 Page 2 of 2