Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00114/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00114-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
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

MARTH M. McELROY,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

No. 2:23-cv-0114 TLN DB PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff Martha McElroy is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to 

the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). By order 

signed April 26, 2023, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and plaintiff was granted leave to file 

an amended complaint that cured the defects noted in that order. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff was 

granted twenty-eight days from the date of service of the order to file an amended complaint and 

was specifically cautioned that the failure to respond to the court’s order in a timely manner 

would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The twenty-eight-day period has 

long since expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order in any manner.

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

prejudice. See Local Rule 110; FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations will be 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 

Case 2:23-cv-00114-TLN-DB Document 5 Filed 11/06/23 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, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings 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. See Martinez v. Ylst, 

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

Dated: November 3, 2023

DLB:6

DB\orders\orders.pro se\montano1753.fta.f&rs

Case 2:23-cv-00114-TLN-DB Document 5 Filed 11/06/23 Page 2 of 2