(PS) Mororish Science Temple of America v. Nunley ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GS L. LOVE El, et al., No. 2:19-cv-01395-KJM-KJN PS 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 TROY NUNLEY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order dated October 7, 2019, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and twenty-eight 18 days leave to file an amended complaint was granted. Plaintiff did not respond or file anything 19 within the twenty-eight day period. On November 21, 2019, in the interest of hearing plaintiff’s 20 claims on their merits, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause as to why this matter should not 21 be dismissed. That deadline has passed and plaintiff has not responded. Therefore, the court 22 finds that no other sanction than dismissal is appropriate at this time. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 24 prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 25 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 26 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen after 27 being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 28 the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 1 | Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 2 | waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 3 | 1991). 4 | Dated: January 27, 2020 Foci) Aharon 6 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED ° 1395 love 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28