(PC) Love v. Peery ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANGELO M. LOVE No. 2:20-cv-01489-TLN-CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SUZANNE M. PEERY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order filed December 18, 2020, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days 18 leave to file an amended complaint was granted. The thirty day period has now expired, and 19 plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. Plaintiff 20 has consented to this court’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 302. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 22 prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 23 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 24 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 25 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 26 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 27 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 28 ///// 1 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 2 | (9th Cir. 1991). 3 | Dated: January 27, 2021 fi / ued, | Carp Kk. Aas CAROLYN K. DELANEY 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12/lovel489.fta.docx 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28