(PC) Brown v. Duffy ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LANCE BROWN No. 2:18-cv-02494-TLN-CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 BRIAN DUFFY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order filed May 24, 2019, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days leave to 18 file an amended complaint was granted. On July 18, 2019, the court granted plaintiff a 60-day 19 extension of time to file his complaint. That 60-day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not 20 filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. Plaintiff has consented 21 to this court’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 302. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 23 prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 26 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 27 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 28 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 1 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 2 | (9th Cir. 1991). 3 || Dated: September 25, 2019 ff Pee a4 / / a i Carop. Kh. Hoy CAROLYN K. DELANEY 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12/brow2494 fta.docx 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28