Haggard

(PC) Schanck v. Haggard

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 7, 20212:18-cv-00328California335 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WILLIAM KEITH SCHANCK, No. 2:18-cv-0328 AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS &

RECOMMENDATIONS

LORI HAGGARD, Defendant. 16 By order filed March 19, 2021, the complaint was screened and found to not state a claim for relief. ECF No. 14. 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. at 7. Thirty days have now passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim for the reasons set forth in the March 19, 2021 Screening Order (ECF No. 14). See L.R. 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. These findings and…

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.