(PC) Kamilchu v. Sacramento County Sheriff's ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 EDUARD KAMILCHU, No. 2:18-cv-3266 DB P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 17 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate jurisdiction. (ECF No. 18 4.) Plaintiff claims his rights were violated in connection with a 2010 driving under the influence 19 (“DUI”) arrest and related court proceedings. 20 By order dated November 4, 2019, plaintiff’s complaint was screened and dismissed with 21 thirty days leave to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 15.) Thirty days from that date have 22 now passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, or otherwise responded to the 23 court’s order. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly 25 assign a district judge to this action. 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See 2 | Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 4 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 5 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 6 | with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 7 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 8 | failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 9 | Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 | Dated: February 3, 2020 11 12 B ‘BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 DIL OndenPrsonesCivil Rightkamis266. ta 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28