(PS) Bonds v. Diana
(PS) Bonds v. Diana
Trial Court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ALBERT BONDS, Jr., No. 2:25-cv-01635-DAD-SCR 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 JOHN V. DIANA, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, which is referred to the undersigned pursuant 17 to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On June 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint 18 and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF Nos. 1 and 2. On July 2, 2025, this 19 Court screened the complaint per the screening process required by
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 20 found the complaint was deficient in that it failed to plead a basis for federal jurisdiction, did not 21 comply with Rule 8, and failed to state a claim. ECF No. 3. The Court’s order provided in 22 relevant part that Plaintiff shall have 30 days to file an amended complaint that addresses the 23 defects set forth in the order. ECF No. 3 at 6. The Order warned that failure to comply may 24 result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.
Id.More than 30 days have passed, and 25 Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. 26 Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the action be dismissed without prejudice for: 27 1. Failure to establish a basis for federal jurisdiction, failure to comply with Rule 8, and 28 ] failure to state a claim, as explained in the Court’s screening order (ECF No. 3); and 2 2. Failure to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 4 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days 5 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 6 || with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings 7 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 8 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Yist,
951 F.2d 11539 | (Oth Cir. 1991). 10 | DATED: August 13, 2025 fof 12 SEAN C. RIORDAN 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Reference
- Status
- Unknown