Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01810/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01810-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Barry Layton
Plaintiff
Webull Financial LLC
Defendant

Document Text:

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

BARRY LAYTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

WEBULL FINANCIAL LLC,

Defendant.

No. 2:22-cv-1810 TLN DB PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff Barry Layton 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 June 30, 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. 19.) 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 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 

Case 2:22-cv-01810-TLN-DB Document 20 Filed 11/02/23 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, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 

shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 

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 1, 2023

DLB:6

DB/orders/orders.pro se/layton1810.dlop.f&rs

Case 2:22-cv-01810-TLN-DB Document 20 Filed 11/02/23 Page 2 of 2