Crume

(PC) Barth v. Crume

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaDecember 15, 20202:19-cv-00723California336 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SHAWN DAMON BARTH, No. 2:19-cv-0723 TLN AC P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS Z. CRUME, et al., Defendants. 16 By order filed March 31, 2020, the undersigned screened the first amended complaint and found that it did not state a claim for relief and would not be served. ECF No. 10 at 9. Plaintiff was given thirty days to file an amended complaint and cautioned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Id. Despite being granted multiple extensions of time and being reminded that failing to file an amended complaint would result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed (ECF Nos. 14, 17, 19), plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the first amended complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim as outlined in the March 31, 2020 screening order. ECF No. 10; L.R. 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). …

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.