(PC) Davis v. Petersen ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JIM DALE DAVIS, No. 2:19-cv-2130 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 KIM PETERSON, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 On March 16, 2020, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff 18 was warned that failure to file an amended complaint by the deadline for doing so would result in 19 a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The deadline has passed, and plaintiff has not 20 filed an amended complaint. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court assign a district 22 court judge to this case, and 23 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See 24 Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 25 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 26 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen after 27 being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 28 the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and WADE hDYVEME LOU ING INI INES MUI RI EOE □□ oe 1 | Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 2 || waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 3 | 1991). 4 | Dated: July 29, 2020 ft A Lad fue. © 9 CAROLYN K. DELANEY 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9} 1 10 davi2130.fta 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28