Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00655/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00655-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Delphia Ray
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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Plaintiff Delphia Ray, proceeding in pro se and in forma pauperis, filed her social security 

complaint on May 2, 2014. Doc. 1. On May 22, 2014, this Court screened the complaint and 

dismissed it for failure to state a claim with leave to amend. Doc. 5. Service was effectuated the 

same day. Plaintiff was given thirty days to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies, and 

was advised that failure to file an amended complaint within thirty days would result in dismissal 

with prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for failure to state a claim. As of July 1, 

2015, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. 

Hence, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the action is DISMISSED with prejudice, and 

the case closed. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Court 

Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-

304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of 

California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written 

objections with the Court, serving a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

DELPHIA RAY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. 1:14-CV-655-LJO-SMS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 

Case 1:14-cv-00655-LJO-SMS Document 8 Filed 07/07/15 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.” The Court will then review 

the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 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). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 7, 2015 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:14-cv-00655-LJO-SMS Document 8 Filed 07/07/15 Page 2 of 2