(PC) Cato v. Pohovich
This text of (PC) Cato v. Pohovich ((PC) Cato v. Pohovich) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FREDERICK S. CATO, No. 2:23-cv-1903 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 S. POHOVICH, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 13, 2024, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On December 17, 19 2024, plaintiff was ordered to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the pending 20 motion within thirty days. In the same order, plaintiff was informed that failure to file an 21 opposition would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. 22 Civ. P. 41(b). The thirty day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the 23 court’s order. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court assign a district 25 court judge to this case. 26 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule 27 of Civil Procedure 41(b). 28 ///// ] These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 3 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 4 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 5 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 6 || objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 7 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 8 | appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 9 | Dated: January 27, 2025 / a8 } i | / p , {a ce 10 CAROLYN DELANEY 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 1S 1 16 cato1903.46fr
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
(PC) Cato v. Pohovich, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-cato-v-pohovich-caed-2025.