Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Vang v. Hudson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 7, 2010

MAI VANG, PLAINTIFF,
v.
LUELLA HUDSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

This matter came before the court on June 4, 2010 at 11:00 a.m. for a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference. No appearance was made by plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se in this action. R. Duane Skelton, Esq. appeared as counsel for defendant Luella Hudson.

On April 6, 2010, the court's order setting the status conference was filed and served by the court on each party who has appeared in this case and has not been dismissed. The order provides that "[e]ach party shall appear at the Status Conference either by counsel or, if proceeding in propria persona, on his or her own behalf." Order Setting Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference (Doc. No. 43) at 2. The order also provides that "[p]laintiff Vang shall file and serve a status report on or before May 21, 2010." Id. Plaintiff was advised that the failure to file a timely status report or the failure to appear at the status conference, either in person or telephonically, may result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed for lack of prosecution and as a sanction for failure to comply with court orders and applicable rules. See Local Rules 110 and 183.

Id. at 3. The court recently reminded plaintiff of her obligations to file a status report and appear at the status conference on June 4, 2010. See Order filed May 18, 2010 (Doc. No. 48) at1-2 & n.1. In direct violation of the court's orders, plaintiff failed to fail a status report and failed to appear at the status conference.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution and as a sanction for failure to comply with court orders and applicable rules.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Any objections to these findings and recommendations must be in submitted in writing and must be filed and served within fourteen (14) days after these findings and recommendations are filed. A document containing objections should be titled "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

20100607

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.