(PC) Dawson v. Uddin ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISSAC D. DAWSON, No. 2:20-cv-0313 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 DR. UDDIN, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order filed July 27, 2020, plaintiff’s complaint was screened, and plaintiff was granted 18 thirty days to inform the court as to whether he wished to proceed with the complaint as screened, 19 to file an amended complaint or file a notice responsive to the screening order. Thirty days from 20 that date have now passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, or otherwise 21 responded to the court’s order. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a district judge be assigned to this case; and 23 IT IS HEREBY 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 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 28 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 1 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 2 | failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 3 || Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 | Dated: October 27, 2020 5 6 4 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 |} DLB7; DB/Inbox/Routine/daws0313 fta 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28