(PC) Kuykendall v. Superior Court of CA ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD KUYKENDALL, II, No. 2:20-cv-1590 TLN KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 By order filed November 10, 2020, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days 19 leave to file an amended complaint was granted. Thirty days from that date have now passed, and 20 plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 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 and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 27 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 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: January 27, 2021 ‘ Frese Arn 5 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 | Auyk1590.fta 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28