(PC) Ardds v. Martin ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTOINE L. ARDDS, No. 2:20-cv-0133 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 KENNETH MARTIN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order filed March 4, 2020, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days leave to 18 file an amended complaint was granted. Thirty days from that date have now passed, and 19 plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 20 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is 21 directed to assign a district judge to this case; and 22 IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 23 110; 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 thirty days after 26 being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 27 the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 28 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 2 TEINOINGIN RAVUUPTOII th FH Ueto Payee vie 1 | failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 2 | Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 | Dated: April 21, 2020 ‘ Frese Arn 5 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 | arddo133/.fta 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28