IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 1, 2011
MICHAEL SUTTON, PLAINTIFF,
SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD; AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, DEFENDANTS.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On July 21, 2006, the court granted plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis but ordered plaintiff to show cause, within twenty days, why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dckt. No. 3. The court explained that plaintiff "has provided no basis for federal court jurisdiction," and that plaintiff's complaint "merely seeks copies of prior benefits checks he was paid from SSI" which plaintiff may obtain from the Social Security Administration. Id.
The docket reveals that plaintiff never responded to the order to show cause. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. This action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, for failure to prosecute, and for failure to comply with court orders; and
2. The Clerk be directed to close this case.
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, 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." Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.