(PC) Craver v. Tran ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDRE RAMON CRAVER, No. 2:20-cv-1714 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 T. TRAN, FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendant. 16 17 By order filed January 11, 2021, plaintiff’s complaint was screened and found to state a 18 cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim against defendant T. Tran. Plaintiff’s remaining 19 claims against this defendant were deemed non-cognizable. Plaintiff was then granted thirty days 20 to provide notice as to whether he wished to proceed with the complaint as screened, to stand on 21 his complaint, or to dismiss this action entirely. Thirty days from that date have now passed, and 22 plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a district judge be assigned to this case; and 24 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for 25 failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 41(b). 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 fourteen 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: March 20, 2021 7 8 9 ORAH BARNES /DLBI. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 |) DBAnbox/Routine/crav1714.fta 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28