(PC) Rich v. Stratton ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELIJAH RAY RICH, No. 2:17-cv-0432 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 J. STRATTON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order issued June 3, 2019, plaintiff was directed either to file an amended complaint or 18 to inform the court in writing that he did not wish to file an amended complaint and instead 19 wanted to proceed only on the claims the undersigned had found were cognizable in the screening 20 order. (See ECF No. 7 at 10). At that time, plaintiff was given thirty days to comply with the 21 court’s order. (See id. at 10). More than thirty days from that date have passed, and plaintiff has 22 neither filed an amended complaint nor otherwise responded to the court’s order. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a 24 District Court Judge to this action. 25 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See 26 Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 27 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 28 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 1 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 2 | with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections 3 | to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 4 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 5 | Martinez v. Y1st, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 | Dated: September 30, 2019 7 8 9 ‘BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 | piB:13 DB/ORDERS/ORDERS.PRISONER.CIVIL RIGHTS /ich0432.fta 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28