Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00854/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00854-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dependency Associates of Sacramento
Defendant
Katherine M. Fogarty
Defendant
Gabrieal McCain
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

1 This period includes an additional three days for service pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e). 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GABRIEAL McCAIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPENDENCY ASSOCIATES OF

SACRAMENTO, KATHERINE M.

FOGARTY, 

Defendants.

CIV S-05-0854 GEB PAN PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

—NFN—

On May 19, 2005, this court granted plaintiff’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed plaintiff’s complaint on

the ground it failed to set forth a claim upon which this court

may grant relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The court

directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint within twenty

days or by June 13, 2005.1 The court warned that “[f]ailure

timely to amend the complaint may result in a recommendation this

Case 2:05-cv-00854-GEB-PAN Document 6 Filed 06/30/05 Page 1 of 3
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

action be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).”

Plaintiff has neither filed an amended complaint nor

otherwise responded to the court’s order. 

Accordingly, I recommend this action be dismissed for 

plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)

(dismissal warranted for “failure of the plaintiff to prosecute

or comply with these rules or any order of court”); see also,

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f) (authorizing dismissal pursuant to Rule

37(b)(2)(C) “[i]f a party . . . fails to obey a . . . pretrial

order”); E. D. Cal. L. R. 11-110 (“[f]ailure of . . . a party to

comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be

grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions

authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the

court”).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

Honorable Garland E. Burrell, Jr., the United States District

Judge assigned to this case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Written

objections may be filed within ten days after being served with

these findings and recommendations. The document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” The failure to file objections within the 

////

////

////

////

////

Case 2:05-cv-00854-GEB-PAN Document 6 Filed 06/30/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s

order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: June 29, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00854-GEB-PAN Document 6 Filed 06/30/05 Page 3 of 3