(PC) Lamarque v. Barcus ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PORFIRIO LAMARQUE, Case No.: 1:18-cv-01234 DAD JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER 14 JIM BARCUS, et al, FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint was screened recently, and he was directed to submit a 18 notice as to whether he wishes to stand on his pleading, to proceed with it as screened, or to file a 19 second amended complaint. (Doc. 17.) Plaintiff was provided a thirty-day response period, and he 20 was specifically informed that if he did not submit an amended pleading or a notice, then the 21 Court would recommend that this action be dismissed for failure to obey a court order. The 22 deadline to submit a response has now passed, and plaintiff has not submitted a notice or 23 otherwise responded to the order. Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be 24 dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 25 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 26 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 27 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 28 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections 1 to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 2 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 3 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: December 19, 2019 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28