(PC) Vargas v. Banasurie ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NATHAN VARGAS, No. 2: 18-cv-2774 TLN KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 THOMAS BANSURIE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order filed November 14, 2019, plaintiff was granted thirty days to file an amended 18 complaint. (ECF No. 38.) On November 22, 2019, the November 14, 2019 order was re-served 19 at plaintiff’s new address. Thirty days passed from November 22, 2019, and plaintiff did not file 20 an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the court’s order. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 22 prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 23 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 24 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 25 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 26 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 27 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 28 //// 1 | failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 2 | Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 | Dated: January 3, 2020 ‘ Frese Arn 5 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 Varg2774.fta 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28