IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 25, 2011
KIMPO TEANG, PLAINTIFF,
GMAC MORTGAGE LLC,
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On April 15, 2011, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for her failure to file timely opposition or a statement of non-opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss, and for her failure to appear at the hearing of defendant's motion. Plaintiff has filed and served a timely response to the order to show cause, along with a statement that she does not oppose defendant's motion to dismiss.
The undersigned finds good cause not to impose sanctions upon plaintiff, either for her failure to file timely opposition or non-opposition to defendant's motion, or for her failure to appear at the hearing of the motion. In light of plaintiff's statement of non-opposition, the undersigned will recommend that the district judge grant defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failure to state any claim upon which relief can be granted.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the court's April 15, 2011 order to show cause (Doc. No. 12) is discharged; and IT IS RECOMMENDED that: 1. Defendant's unopposed motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint without leave to amend (Doc. No. 5) be granted; and 2. This action be dismissed.
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). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to objections shall be filed within seven (7) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
DAD:kw Ddad1\orders.pro se\teang0024.f&r.mtdgr
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.