Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-04786/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-04786-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 ROBERT FLORES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION,

Defendant. /

No. C -12-04786 EDL

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

REGRADING DISMISSAL

Plaintiff filed this case on September 12, 2012. On that date, the Court ordered the parties to

file a joint Case Management Conference no later than December 4, 2012, and also set a Case

Management Conference for December 11, 2012. Since that time, Plaintiff has failed to prosecute

this case. There is no indication on the docket that Defendant has been served in this case. Plaintiff

has not responded to two notices from the Court regarding consent or declination to magistrate judge

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Plaintiff did not file a Case Management Conference

statement and did not appear at the Case Management Conference. 

Accordingly, on December 12, 2012, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to why this

case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The Order required Plaintiff to file a written

response no later than December 21, 2012. The Order also stated that if Plaintiff failed to file a

written response, the Court would reassign this matter to a district court judge along with a

recommendation for dismissal. 

To date, Plaintiff has failed to file a written response or otherwise communicate with the

Court regarding this case. Therefore, the Court recommends that this case be dismissed with

prejudice. Any party may serve and file specific written objections to this recommendation within

fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P.

Case 4:12-cv-04786-CW Document 7 Filed 01/02/13 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

72(b); Civil Local Rule 72-3. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the 

right to appeal the District Court's order. 

Dated: January 2, 2013 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:12-cv-04786-CW Document 7 Filed 01/02/13 Page 2 of 2