(HC) Hanrahan v. Oddo ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT HANRAHAN, No. 2:19-cv-0641 TLN KJN P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 L.J. ODDO, 15 Respondent. 16 17 By order filed December 12, 2019, petitioner was ordered to show cause, within fourteen 18 days, why this action should not be dismissed as moot. The fourteen-day period has now expired, 19 and petitioner has not shown cause or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 20 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See 21 Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 22 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 23 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 24 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 25 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 26 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 27 objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 28 //// 1 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 2 | appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 | Dated: January 13, 2020 ‘ Fens Arn 5 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 /han10641.fsc 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28