Cudney

(PS) Shreeman v. Cudney

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 31, 20202:18-cv-02329California387 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 PAUL KENNETH SHREEMAN, No. 2:18-cv-2329-TLN-EFB PS Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MARK DAVID CUDNEY, Defendant. 16 On February 6, 2020, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, explained the deficiencies therein, and granted plaintiff thirty days in which to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies. ECF No. 4. The order warned plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint could result in the dismissal of this action. The time for acting has passed and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. Thus, it appears that plaintiff is unable to cure the defects in the complaint. ///// ///// ///// 27 1 This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. §…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.