Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02232/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02232-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kari Hamilton
Plaintiff
State Farm Claim #55-22D5-150
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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KARI HAMILTON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

STATE FARM CLAIM #55-22D5-150, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:15-cv-2232-KJM-EFB PS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

This action, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the 

undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On October 28, 

2015, defendant filed a motion to dismiss. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The time for acting 

passed, and plaintiff failed to file an opposition or otherwise respond to the motion. 

On December 3, 2015, the court warned plaintiff that failure to respond to the motion could result 

in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The court also 

granted plaintiff a 21-day extension of time to respond. 

 The time for acting has once again passed and plaintiff has not filed an opposition, a 

statement of no opposition, or otherwise responded to the court’s order. Plaintiff has disobeyed 

this court’s orders and failed to prosecute this action. The appropriate action is dismissal without 

prejudice. 

Case 2:15-cv-02232-KJM-EFB Document 17 Filed 01/07/16 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

 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 

prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110, 183(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 fourteen 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.” 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 7, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-02232-KJM-EFB Document 17 Filed 01/07/16 Page 2 of 2