(PC) Lake v. Weiss ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN LAKE, No. 2:19-cv-2083 MCE KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 J. WEISS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order filed October 25, 2019, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days leave 18 to file an amended complaint was granted. Following multiple extensions of time, on July 14, 19 2020, plaintiff was granted another thirty days to file an amended complaint. Thirty days from 20 that date have now passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, or otherwise 21 responded to the court’s order. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 23 prejudice. See 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 wAIS 2 VEVOUTIVIYS LING RAVI Ge PR vere POY ee 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: September 1, 2020 ‘ Frese Arn 5 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 | Aake2083.fta 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28