(PC) Brooks v. Zuniga ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROWAN CROSBY BROOKS, Jr., No. 2:20-cv-0014 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 ZUNIGA, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 5, 2020, plaintiff’s first amended complaint was 19 screened and found to be devoid of a cognizable claim. Plaintiff was then directed to file a notice 20 as to whether he wished to stand on his complaint, to dismiss this action, or to file an amended 21 complaint. The time for filing this notice has now passed, and plaintiff has not responded to the 22 Court’s order or requested an extension of time to do so. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a district judge be assigned to this case; and 24 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See 25 Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 26 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 27 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 28 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections wOAOe 2 UV EIT EAN MMU tO PI ee AY ee 1 | with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 2 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 3 | failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 4 | Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 | Dated: July 22, 2020 g ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 | Bz: DB/Inbox/Routine/broo0014.fr dism 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28