(PS) Solorzano v. Heritage One Door and Carpentry, LLC ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JR SOLORZANO, No. 2:18-cv-02080 MCE AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 HERITAGE ONE DOOR AND CARPENTRY, LLC, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The action was accordingly referred to the 19 undersigned for pretrial matters by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21) and by ECF No. 30. 20 On June 9, 2020, defendant filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 29. Plaintiff did not file a timely 21 opposition. On June 26, 2020, the court issued an order to show cause within 14 days why this 22 case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 32. Plaintiff has not responded to 23 the court’s orders, nor taken any action to prosecute this case. 24 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without 25 prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court’s order. See Fed. R. 26 Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110. 27 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 28 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one wOAOe 2. UV Ne MUO OO POO te OY Oe 1 | (21) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 2 | objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate □□□□□□ 3 | Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 4 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 5 || Martinez v. Y1st, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 || DATED: July 10, 2020 ~ 7 ththten— Llane ALLISON CLAIRE 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28