Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00137/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00137-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1402 Medical Malpractice

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSICA BUCKLEY, NO. CIV.S-06-0137 LKK DAD PS

Plaintiffs,

v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________/

By order filed May 15, 2006, the undersigned required

plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, to show cause in writing why

this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Plaintiff had previously failed to appear at the May 12, 2006, status

(pretrial scheduling) conference and had also failed to file a status

report as required by the court’s order of January 26, 2006. As set

forth in the order to show cause, there also was no indication in the

record that plaintiff had completed service of process as to one of

the defendants, even though the order setting status conference 

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00137-LKK -DAD Document 16 Filed 06/07/06 Page 1 of 3
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

 The order to show cause warned plaintiff that failure to 1

comply with that order would result in a recommendation that this

matter be dismissed.

2

encouraged her to do so within sixty days of the filing of her

complaint.

The required time has expired and plaintiff has failed to

respond to the court’s order to show cause. Additionally, despite

more than four months having passed since the issuance of the order

setting status (pretrial scheduling) conference, there is still no

indication that plaintiff has effectuated service of process on all

defendants.

Although it appears from the docket that plaintiff’s copy

of the order to show cause issued on May 15, 2006 was returned as

undeliverable, it is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court

apprised of her current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule

83-182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is

fully effective.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this matter be

dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See L.R. 11- 1

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 twenty 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 and Recommendations.” 

Case 2:06-cv-00137-LKK -DAD Document 16 Filed 06/07/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

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: June 6, 2006.

DAD:th

Ddad1\orders.prose\buckley0137.f&r

Case 2:06-cv-00137-LKK -DAD Document 16 Filed 06/07/06 Page 3 of 3