Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01015/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01015-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sean Geddes
Defendant
Michael Vigil
Plaintiff

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL VIGIL, NO. CIV.S-06-1015 DFL DAD PS

Plaintiff,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

v.

SEAN GEDDES,

Defendant.

__________________________/

By an order filed August 11, 2006, plaintiff was ordered to

show cause in writing within twenty days why this case should not be

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The twenty-day

period has now expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the

court’s order.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the order to show

cause filed August 11, 2006, which the undersigned incorporates by

reference, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01015-RRB-DAD Document 4 Filed 09/14/06 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

2

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. Such a document should be

captioned “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. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

Cir. 1991).

DATED: September 14, 2006.

DAD:lg:th

Ddad1/orders.prose/vigil1015.f&r

Case 2:06-cv-01015-RRB-DAD Document 4 Filed 09/14/06 Page 2 of 2