(PC) Perryman v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID PERRYMAN, No. 2:19-cv-2517 JAM KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND 15 REHABILITATION, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 By order filed June 2, 2020, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days leave to 19 file an amended complaint was granted. Following multiple extensions of time, on April 1, 2021, 20 plaintiff was granted one final sixty days in which to file an amended complaint. On April 14, 21 2021, plaintiff’s subsequent request for extension of time was denied, and he was reminded that 22 his amended complaint was due sixty days from April 1, 2021. Sixty days have now passed, and 23 plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 25 prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 26 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 27 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 28 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 1 | with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 2 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 3 || failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 4 | Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 | Dated: June 25, 2021 Foci) Aharon 7 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE sewilperr2517.fta 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28