IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 28, 2013
MICHELLE MELLEMA, PLAINTIFF,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER AND FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
By order filed December 17, 2012, plaintiff's complaint was dismissed and twenty-eight days leave to file an amended complaint was granted. In that order, the court informed plaintiff of the deficiencies in her complaint. The twenty-eight day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court's order. Plaintiff has apparently decided to rest on the dismissed complaint.
Plaintiff did file a document entitled, "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations," in which she withdraws her consent to the magistrate judge. Therefore, plaintiff's consent, filed October 10, 2012, will be deemed withdrawn.*fn1 In regard to her "objections," plaintiff is informed that they are premature; however, she may file objections to the instant findings and recommendations within fourteen days of their issuance.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: plaintiff's motion to withdraw consent, filed January 4, 2013, (dkt. no. 5), is granted and plaintiff's consent, filed October 10, 2012, (dkt. no. 3), is stricken.
For the reasons given in the December 17, 2012 order, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed with prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
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, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).