(PC)Wells

(PC)Wells v. Newsom

Bad Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 10, 20212:20-cv-01557California332 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANDRE WELLS, No. 2:20-cv-1557 WBS AC P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On July 29, 2021, plaintiff’s first amended complaint was screened and was determined not to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. ECF No. 39. As a result, plaintiff was given thirty days leave to file a second amended complaint. See id. at 7. Thirty days from that date have now passed, and plaintiff has neither filed an amended complaint nor otherwise responded to the court’s order. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice. See Local Rule 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.