(PC) Hall v. Nagara ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN M. HALL, No. 2:19-cv-0980-EFB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 NAGARA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 12, 2019, the court screened plaintiff’s amended complaint and 19 found service appropriate for defendant Nagara. ECF No. 12. That order gave plaintiff 30 days 20 to submit the documents necessary for service of process on defendant and warned plaintiff that 21 failure to comply with the order could result in dismissal of this case. The time for acting has 22 passed and plaintiff has failed to comply with or otherwise respond to the court’s order. 23 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk shall randomly assign a United States District 24 Judge to this case. 25 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. 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, any party may file written 2 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 3 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 4 | within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 5 || Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 || Dated: January 29, 2020. 7 tid, PDEA 8 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28