(PC) Cramer v. Hubbard ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATTHEW B. CRAMER, No. 2: 20-cv-0649 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER & FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 A. HUBBARD, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order filed May 5, 2020, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and sixty days leave to 18 file an amended complaint was granted. Sixty days from that date have now passed, and plaintiff 19 has not filed an amended complaint, or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall assign a district 21 judge to this action; and 22 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See 23 Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 26 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 27 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 28 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 1 | failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 2 | Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 | Dated: July 14, 2020 ‘ Frese Arn 5 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 Cra649.fta 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28