(PS) Hernandez v. City of Stockton ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL HERNANDEZ, No. 2:18-cv-1316-JAM-EFB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CITY OF STOCKTON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 After this case was referred to the undersigned, the court issued an order setting a status 18 conference on November 20, 2019. ECF No. 37. The order also directed the parties to file, by no 19 later than November 6, 2019, status reports addressing the future scheduling of the case. Id. 20 Defendants timely filed a joint status report (ECF No. 39), but plaintiff failed to file a status 21 report. Accordingly, the status conference was continued, and plaintiff was ordered, by no later 22 than December 4, 2019, to file a status report and to show cause why sanctions should not be 23 imposed for his failure to file a status report. ECF No. 40. Plaintiff was also admonished that 24 failure to comply with the order could result in the imposition of sanctions, including a 25 recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or comply with court 26 orders. Id. at 2. 27 The deadline has passed and plaintiff has not filed a status report, nor has he otherwise 28 responded to the court’s order to show cause. 1 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the December 18, 2019 scheduling conference 2 || is vacated. 3 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and 4 || to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Cal. E.D. L.R. 110. 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 6 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within fourteen days 7 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 8 | with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 9 | and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right 10 || to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); 11 | Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 12 13 | DATED: December 12, 2019 14 i lite HbA EDMUND F. BRENNAN 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28