Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02458/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02458-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Department of Corrections
Defendant
John Richardson
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-2458 LKK KJM P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed April 28, 2010, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days

leave to file an amended complaint was granted. The thirty day period has now expired, and

plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

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 twentyone 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.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

/////

1

Case 2:09-cv-02458-LKK -KJM Document 17 Filed 07/01/10 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

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 30, 2010. 

rich2458.fta

2

Case 2:09-cv-02458-LKK -KJM Document 17 Filed 07/01/10 Page 2 of 2