Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00893/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00893-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Borunda
Defendant
Robert Hand
Defendant
Resources for Independence Central Valley
Defendant
Melvin Ricks
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Melvin Ricks, proceeding in pro se and in forma pauperis, filed an employment 

discrimination complaint on June 12, 2015. Doc. 1. On July 21, 2014, this Court screened the 

complaint and dismissed it in part with leave to amend. Doc. 4. That order directed Plaintiff to file 

an amended complaint or notify the Court in writing that he wishes to proceed only on claims 

found to be cognizable. Doc. 4. Plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with that order would 

result in this action being dismissed without prejudice. Doc. 4. Service was effectuated the same 

day. Doc. 5. As of October 6, 2015, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or notified the 

court in writing of his willingness to proceed only on claims found to be cognizable. 

Hence, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the action is DISMISSED without prejudice, 

and the case closed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Court 

Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-

304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of 

California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written 

MELVIN RICKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

RESOURCES FOR INDEPENDENCE 

CENTRAL VALLEY; MICHAEL 

BORUNDA; ROBERT HAND,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-893-AWI-SMS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Case 1:15-cv-00893-AWI-SMS Document 7 Filed 10/09/15 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

objections with the Court, serving a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The Court will then review 

the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 8, 2015 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00893-AWI-SMS Document 7 Filed 10/09/15 Page 2 of 2