(PC) Morris v. CSP-Sacramento ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ORVILLE M. MORRIS, No. 2:17-cv-2286 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CSP-SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order issued June 6, 2019, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed, and thirty days leave to 18 file an amended complaint was granted. ECF No. 17. On July 9, 2019, plaintiff was granted an 19 additional sixty days within which to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 21. Sixty days from 20 that date have now expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.1 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. See 24 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 fourteen days 27 1 Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel, filed August 29, 2019, was denied on September 5, 2019. 28 ECF Nos. 22, 23, respectively. 1 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 2 || with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 3 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 4 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 5 | (th Cir. 1991). 6 | DATED: October 16, 2019 ~ 7 Attten— Lhar—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28