(PC) Reed v. Leatherman ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PETER J. REED, No. 2:18-cv-0038 KJM CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 D. LEATHERMAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On September 23, 2021, plaintiff was ordered to file a response to defendants’ August 23, 18 2021 motion for sanctions for violation of a protective order within 21 days. Plaintiff was warned 19 that failure to file a response would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed 20 pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The 21-day period has now 21 expired, and plaintiff has not filed a response. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 23 prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen after 26 being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 27 the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 28 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 1 || waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 2 | 1991). 3 || Dated: October 28, 2021 Card Kt | ([z4 □□□ 4 CAROLYNK.DELANEY 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8] 1 9 reed0038.frs 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28