(PS) Tanksley v. Inman ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MOODY WOODROW TANKSLEY, No. 2:20-cv-1815 KJM DB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 JASON INMAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Moody Woodrow Tanksley is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was 18 referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 19 By order signed November 20, 2020, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed, and plaintiff was 20 granted leave to file an amended complaint that cured the defects noted in that order. (ECF No. 21 3.) Plaintiff was granted twenty-eight days from the date of that order to file the amended 22 complaint and was specifically cautioned that the failure to respond to the court’s order in a 23 timely manner would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (Id. at 5.) The 24 twenty-eight-day period has expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order in any 25 manner. 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 2 | prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 3 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 4 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty days after 5 | being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 6 | the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 7 | Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 8 | specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal the District Court’s 9 | order. See Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 10 | Dated: April 5, 2021 11 12 B ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 DLB:6 22 | DBiorders\orders.pro se\tanksley1815.fta.f&rs 23 24 25 26 27 28