IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 1, 2010
AARON TYLER HUGHES, PLAINTIFF,
COUNTY OF KERN, KERN COUNTY, SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE
Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 302 and 304.
On January 25, 2010, the Court ordered the complaint dismissed with leave to amend due to the vagueness of the complaint which prevented Plaintiff from stating a viable claim for excessive force. (Doc. 7). The order granted Plaintiff 30 days leave in which to file an amended complaint. (Id.) The order was served on Plaintiff on January 25, 2010. Although the time for filing the amended complaint has passed, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint nor sought an extension of time within which to do so.
Based on the foregoing, the Court recommends,
1. That the complaint (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.
These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy, any party 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." Replies to the objections shall be filed within seven (7) days after service of the objections. The District Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge's ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Judge's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.