Case Name: Thomas T. ALFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. I.D. CLAY, Warden of SCC, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-09
Citations: 317 F. App'x 687
Docket Number: No. 08-17485
Parties: Thomas T. ALFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. I.D. CLAY, Warden of SCC, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 317
Pages: 687–688

Head Matter:
Thomas T. ALFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. I.D. CLAY, Warden of SCC, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-17485.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 23, 2009.
Filed March 9, 2009.
Thomas T. Alford, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
On June 3, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations that appellant's complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim. On June 30, 2008, the Magistrate Judge vacated his earlier recommendation of dismissal and granted appellant an extension of time to file an amended complaint. Appellant filed an amended complaint as directed on July 31, 2008. On September 29, 2008, 2008 WL 4490060, the district court adopted the June 3, 2008 findings and recommendations, which had been vacated by the Magistrate Judge. This appears to have been an oversight. Because the Magistrate Judge vacated his initial recommendation and because appellant filed an amended complaint as directed, we remand to the district court to consider the amended complaint filed on July 31, 2008.
REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.