Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00088/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00088-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

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 

GONZALO R. RUBANG, JR.,, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:16-cv-00088 GEB AC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The action was accordingly referred to the 

undersigned for pretrial matters by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21). On June 16, 2016, the 

court dismissed the complaint (ECF No. 14), and on June 17, 2016, plaintiff was granted 30 days 

to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 15). Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to timely file and 

amended complaint would lead to a recommendation that the action be dismissed. Plaintiff has 

not filed an amended complaint. His only post-dismissal filing was a letter expressing 

disagreement with the court’s ruling. ECF No. 16. 

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

prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court’s order. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110. 

 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)(l). Within twenty-one 

Case 2:16-cv-00088-GEB-AC Document 18 Filed 11/29/16 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

(21) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 

objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). 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: November 28, 2016 

Case 2:16-cv-00088-GEB-AC Document 18 Filed 11/29/16 Page 2 of 2