Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00342/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00342-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shasta County Public Defenders Office
Defendant
Corry Whiteman
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 

CORRY WHITEMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SHASTA COUNTY PUBLIC 

DEFENDERS OFFICE, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:24-cv-0342-SCR P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS & 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 By order filed November 1, 2024, plaintiff’s complaint was found to not state any claim 

for relief and thirty days leave to file an amended complaint was granted. The time granted for 

that purpose has expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, or otherwise 

responded to the court’s order. 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is 

directed to assign a district judge to this case; and 

 IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to 

state a claim, for reasons described in the order filed November 1; for failure to prosecute; and for 

failure to follow a court order. 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 21 days after 

Case 2:24-cv-00342-DAD-SCR Document 14 Filed 12/13/24 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 

being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff 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.” 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: December 12, 2024 

Case 2:24-cv-00342-DAD-SCR Document 14 Filed 12/13/24 Page 2 of 2