(PS) Peccia v. State of CDCR ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFF PECCIA, No. 2:23-cv-1412 DAD AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 15 AND REHABILITATION, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The action was accordingly referred to the 19 undersigned for pretrial matters by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21). On August 14, 2023, 20 defendant filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion or respond 21 in any way. On October 13, 2023, the court issued an order to show cause within 14 days why 22 the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff was cautioned 23 that failure to do so could lead to a recommendation that the action be dismissed. Plaintiff did not 24 respond, nor has he taken any action to prosecute this case. 25 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without 26 prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court’s order. See Fed. R. 27 Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110. 28 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 1 || assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).. Within twenty-one (21) 2 || days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 3 || objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 4 | Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff advised that failure to file 5 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 6 || Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 7 || DATED: November 6, 2023 ~ 8 Htttenr— Lhor—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28