(PC) Clark v. Burger ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALPHONSO RAMON CLARK, No. 2:20-cv-0432 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a former county prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed October 27, 2021, plaintiff was ordered to show cause, within 19 thirty days, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to identify and serve the only 20 remaining defendant. ECF No. 22. The thirty-day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not 21 shown cause or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly 23 assign a United States District Judge to this action. 24 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for 25 failure to identify and serve the only remaining defendant and for failure to follow court orders. 26 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); L.R. 110. 27 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 28 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days 1 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 2 || with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections 3 || to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 4 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 5 || Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 | DATED: December 20, 2021 ~ 7 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