(PC) David Roberts v. CSP - SAC ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID ROBERTS, No. 2: 20-cv-1564 JAM KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CSP-SAC, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order filed November 12, 2020, plaintiff was granted thirty days to file an amended 18 complaint. (ECF No. 17.) Thirty days from that date have now passed, and plaintiff has not filed 19 an amended complaint, or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 21 prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 22 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 23 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 24 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 25 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 26 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 27 //// 28 //// 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: December 22, 2020 ‘ Frese Arn 5 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ° Rob1564.fta(2) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28