(PC) Gunn v. Garcia ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AUMINTRIUS DAMOUR GUNN, No. 2:20-cv-2232 WBS AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 R. OLMSTEAD, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order filed November 10, 2021, this court ordered plaintiff to complete and return the 18 paperwork necessary to effect service on defendant Garcia. ECF No. 16. After the thirty-day 19 deadline passed without a response, plaintiff was given an additional fourteen days to return the 20 required paperwork and he was warned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation 21 that this action be dismissed without further warning. ECF No. 17. The fourteen-day period has 22 now passed, and plaintiff has not provided the required paperwork or otherwise responded to the 23 court’s order. Accordingly, no defendant has been served. 1 It further appears that plaintiff has 24 abandoned his case. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 26 prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 27 1 The undersigned previously recommended that all other defendants be dismissed, ECF No. 16, 28 and those findings and recommendations have since been adopted in full. ECF No. 18. ] These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 2 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 3 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 4 || with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings and 5 || Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 6 || may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 7 || Cir. 1991). 8 || DATED: January 13, 2022 , □ 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28