(PC)Covarrubis v. Deuel Vocational Institution ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARMANDO COVARRUBIS, No. 2:20-cv-1193 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 DEUEL VOCATIONAL INSTITUTION, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order issued June 30, 2020, plaintiff’s complaint was screened and he was given thirty 18 days leave to amend it. See ECF No. 7. More than thirty days from that date have passed, and 19 plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, nor has plaintiff responded to the court’s order in 20 any way. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a 22 District Court Judge to this action. 23 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice. 24 See 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 twenty-one days 27 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 28 1 | with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 2 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 3 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 4 | (9th Cir. 1991). 5 || DATED: June 28, 2021 ~ 6 Htttenr— Lhor—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28