United States District Court, E.D. California
January 6, 2015
PATRICIA A. McCOLM, Plaintiff,
TRINITY COUNTY, et al., Defendants
Patricia A. McColm, Plaintiff, Pro se, Lewiston, CA.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff commenced this action in March 2014. On May 29, 2014, the undersigned dismissed the complaint and granted thirty days' leave to amend. On June 24, 2014, plaintiff was granted a 90-day extension of time to file an amended complaint. On September 24, 2014, plaintiff was granted a further extension of time, until December 23, 2014, to file an amended complaint. That order notified plaintiff that " no further extensions of time will be granted." The docket indicates that plaintiff was served with the order. To date, plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint; rather, she seeks yet another extension of time (ECF No. 20).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for extension of time (ECF No. 20) is denied.
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. 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)(1). 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).