(PC) Flores v. Corcarn ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CESAR FLORES, No. 2:20-cv-01973-CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 CORCARN, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order filed March 12, 2021, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days leave 18 to file an amended complaint was granted. The thirty day period has now expired, and plaintiff 19 has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. Plaintiff has 20 consented to this court’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 302. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign this 22 matter to a district court judge. 23 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See 24 Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 25 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 26 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 27 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 28 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 1 | and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 2 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 3 | (9th Cir. 1991). 4 | Dated: April 20, 2021 FD i, / CAN fu fl. ay CAROLYN K. DELANEY 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 12/flor1973 .fta.docx 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28