(PC) Lamarque v. Barcus

Opinion

PORFIRIO LAMARQUE, Case No.: 1:18-cv-01234 DAD JLT (PC) Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT v. PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER JIM BARCUS, et al, FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE Defendants.

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint was screened recently, and he was directed to submit a notice as to whether he wishes to stand on his pleading, to proceed with it as screened, or to file a second amended complaint. (Doc. 17.) Plaintiff was provided a thirty-day response period, and he was specifically informed that if he did not submit an amended pleading or a notice, then the Court would recommend that this action be dismissed for failure to obey a court order. The deadline to submit a response has now passed, and plaintiff has not submitted a notice or otherwise responded to the order. Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS 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, plaintiff may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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: December 19, 2019 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE