(PC) Joseph v. Noguchi ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALONZO JAMES JOSEPH, No. 2:19-cv-0733 TLN DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 V. NOGUCHI, 15 Defendant. 16 17 By order issued August 28, 2020, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed, and sixty days 18 leave to file an amended complaint was granted. (See ECF No. 9). At that time, plaintiff was 19 warned that failure to file an amended complaint in a timely manner would result in a 20 recommendation that this action be dismissed. (See id. at 9). Sixty days from that date have now 21 passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s 22 order. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 24 prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 25 1915A(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110. 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 thirty days after 28 being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 1 | the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 2 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 3 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 4 || Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (th Cir. 1991). 5 || Dated: November 5, 2020 6 7 g ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 || piB:13 DB/ORDERS/ORDERS.PRISONER.CIVIL RIGHTS /ose0733.fta 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28