Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00639/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00639-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronnie Sterling Lacy
Plaintiff
State of California
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

RONNIE STERLING LACY,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-0639 TLN KJN P

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

By order filed June 1, 2015, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days leave to 

file an amended complaint was granted. Thirty days from that date have now passed, and 

plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, or otherwise responded to the court’s order.1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 

prejudice. See Local Rule 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 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 

 

1 On June 19, 2015, plaintiff filed a declaration in support of his motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff’s declaration appears to be signed May 13, 2015, and is 

accompanied by a proof of service dated April 25, 2015 (ECF No. 11 at 6, 5). In any event, 

plaintiff did not provide an amended complaint or address the June 1, 2015 screening order.

Case 2:15-cv-00639-TLN-KJN Document 12 Filed 07/17/15 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 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. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: July 17, 2015

lacy0639.fta

Case 2:15-cv-00639-TLN-KJN Document 12 Filed 07/17/15 Page 2 of 2