Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-00442/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-00442-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Chris Delaney
Defendant
Libby Fernandez
Defendant
Soraya Maria Rigor
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 

SORAYA MARIA RIGOR, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LIBBY FERNANDEZ, CHRIS 

DELANEY, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:18-cv-442-MCE-EFB PS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 On November 25, 2019, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2). The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, explained the 

deficiencies therein, and granted plaintiff thirty days in which to file an amended complaint to 

cure the deficiencies. ECF No. 5. The order warned plaintiff that failure to file an amended 

complaint could result in the dismissal of this action. The time for acting has passed and plaintiff 

has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. Thus, it appears 

that plaintiff is unable to cure the defects in the complaint. 

 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice 

for failure to state a claim as set forth in the November 25, 2019 order (ECF No. 5). 

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 

Case 2:18-cv-00442-MCE-EFB Document 6 Filed 01/22/20 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 

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.” Any response to the 

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are advised that 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: January 22, 2020. 

Case 2:18-cv-00442-MCE-EFB Document 6 Filed 01/22/20 Page 2 of 2