Hill

(PC) Garner v. Hill

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 18, 20242:23-cv-00494California411 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCUS ANDRE GARNER, Case No. 2:23-cv-00494-WBS-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. THAT THIS MATTER BE DISMISSED FOR

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND COMPLY

14 RICK HILL, et al., WITH COURT ORDERS 15 Defendants. OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN

DAYS

16 17 On November 29, 2023, I screened plaintiff’s complaint and notified plaintiff that it did 18 not state cognizable claims. ECF No. 20. I granted him thirty days to file either an amended 19 complaint or an advisement indicating his intent to stand by his current complaint, subject to a 20 recommendation of dismissal. Plaintiff had not responded by the deadline, thus, on February 5, 21 2024, I ordered him to show cause within twenty-one days why this action should not be 22 dismissed. ECF No. 21. I warned him that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that 23 this action be dismissed. Id. at 2. 24 The deadline has passed, and plaintiff has not filed…

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.