Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02434/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02434-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Barry Culbert
Plaintiff
Garet Onley
Defendant

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

BARRY CULBERT, No. CIV.S-04-2434 GEB DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

GARET ONLEY,

Defendant.

__________________________/

By findings and recommendations filed July 29, 2005, the

undersigned magistrate judge recommended that defendant’s motion to

dismiss be granted and that plaintiff’s amended complaint be

dismissed with leave to amend. By order filed September 1, 2005, the

assigned district judged adopted those findings and recommendations

and dismissed the amended complaint with twenty days leave to amend. 

The required time expired and plaintiff did not file a second amended

complaint. Rather, on September 28, 2005, plaintiff filed an

“interlocutory appeal” challenging the district court’s order. By

order filed in this court on December 21, 2005, the United States

Case 2:04-cv-02434-GEB-DAD Document 21 Filed 01/09/06 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

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed plaintiff’s appeal

for lack of jurisdiction since the order challenged in the appeal was

not final or appealable. More than four months has passed since the

order dismissing plaintiff’s amended complaint with leave to amend

and plaintiff has failed to file a second amended complaint.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be

dismissed without prejudice.

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)(1). Within ten (10) 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. See Martinez

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

DATED: January 6, 2006.

DAD:th

DDad1\orders.prose\culbert2434.f&r2

Case 2:04-cv-02434-GEB-DAD Document 21 Filed 01/09/06 Page 2 of 2