Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02073/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02073-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lee Clarke
Petitioner
Shasta County
Respondent

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

LEE CLARKE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-2073 LKK PAN (JFM) P

vs.

SHASTA COUNTY,

Respondent. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed April 19, 2006, petitioner’s application was dismissed and thirty

days’ leave to file an amended application was granted. Upon expiration of that time period, on

June 1, 2006, the court issued findings and recommendations recommending the action be

dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to file an amended petition. By order filed August 8, 2006, the

court vacated the pending findings and recommendations and granted petitioner one final

extension of twenty days to file an amended petition. The twenty-day period has now expired,

and petitioner has once again failed to file an amended application or otherwise responded to the

court’s order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

////

Case 2:05-cv-02073-LKK -EFB Document 25 Filed 09/26/06 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, 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.” 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: September 25, 2006.

14

clar2073.fta

Case 2:05-cv-02073-LKK -EFB Document 25 Filed 09/26/06 Page 2 of 2