(PS) Moreland v. Raytheon Company ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GLORIA ETTA MORELAND, No. 2:19-cv-00906 MCE AC (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 RAYTHEON COMPANY 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The action was accordingly referred to the 18 undersigned for pretrial matters by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21). On July 15, 2019, 19 this court issued an order granting plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and ordering 20 plaintiff, within 30 days, to submit an amended complaint. ECF No. 3. This deadline passed 21 without any filing from plaintiff. 22 On August 21, 2019, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause, within 14 days, why this 23 case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 4. The court warned plaintiff that 24 failure to comply with the order would result in a recommendation that the case be dismissed. 25 Plaintiff has not provided any response. 26 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without 27 prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court’s order. See Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110. 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 || assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within twenty-one 3 || (21) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 4 | objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate □□□□□□ □ 5 | Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 6 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 7 | Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 8 | DATED: September 6, 2019 ~ 9 Alters —Chore ALLISON CLAIRE 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28