(PC) Garone v. Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TIMOTHY GARONE, No. 2:20-cv-01269-CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 RIO COSUMNES CORRECTIONAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CENTER, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 By order filed August 14, 2020, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days leave 19 to file an amended complaint was granted. The thirty-day period has now expired, and plaintiff 20 has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign this 22 matter to a district court judge. 23 IT IS FURTHER 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 days 27 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 28 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings VOADS ECM □□□ EAINT NINES MUU I MMO EN ove 1 | and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 2 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 3 | (9th Cir. 1991). 4 | Dated: September 22, 2020 ft A Lad fue. © 9 CAROLYN K. DELANEY 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 12/garo1269.fta.docx 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28