(PC) Espino v. Arnold ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARTIN ESPINO, No. 2:17-cv-2198 KJM AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 ERIC ARNOLD, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On June 3, 2019, the undersigned ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 18 thirty days. ECF No. 9. Thereafter, on June 19, 2019, plaintiff filed a request for a ninety-day 19 extension of time to file the amended complaint, which was granted on June 24, 2019. ECF Nos. 20 12, 13. More than ninety days from that date have now passed, and plaintiff has not filed an 21 amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 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. Such a 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 27, 2019 ~ 4 Attten— ALLISON CLAIRE 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28