Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01869/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01869-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
C&H Sugar Company, Inc.
Defendant
Willie Mae Thompson
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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WILLIE MAE THOMPSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C&H SUGAR COMPANY, INC., 

Defendant. 

No. 2:13-cv-1869-MCE-EFB PS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

This action, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the 

undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On March 30, 

2015, the assigned district judge adopted this court’s March 3, 2015 findings and 

recommendations. That order dismissed plaintiff’s original complaint with leave to amend as to 

certain claims. The order gave plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint and warned 

plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint would result in a recommendation that this 

action be dismissed. ECF No. 19. 

 The deadline has passed and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise 

responded to the order. 

///// 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:13-cv-01869-MCE-EFB Document 20 Filed 05/18/15 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

 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, and that the 

Clerk be directed to close this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 

 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 

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.” Failure to file objections within the specified time 

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 

(9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: May 18, 2015. 

Case 2:13-cv-01869-MCE-EFB Document 20 Filed 05/18/15 Page 2 of 2