Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01824/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01824-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marcus W. Best
Plaintiff
Theresa Schwartz
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

MARCUS W. BEST,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1824 FCD DAD P

vs.

THERESA SCHWARTZ, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed October 4, 2006, plaintiff’s September 12, 2005 complaint and

September 26, 2005 amended complaint were dismissed and thirty days leave to file a second 

amended complaint was granted. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to do so would result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed. The thirty day period has now expired, and

plaintiff has not filed a second amended complaint 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).

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, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Case 2:05-cv-01824-FCD-DAD Document 8 Filed 11/16/06 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

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: November 16, 2006.

DAD:lg

best1824.fta

Case 2:05-cv-01824-FCD-DAD Document 8 Filed 11/16/06 Page 2 of 2