(PC) Parrish v. Mule Creek State Prison ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA PARRISH, No. 2:22-cv-02192-CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 MULE CREEK STATE PRISON, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendant. 16 17 By order filed December 27, 2022, plaintiff was granted 30 days to file a complaint in 18 order to properly commence this civil action. ECF No. 10. The thirty day period has now 19 expired, and plaintiff has not filed a complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 20 Plaintiff was warned that his failure to respond to the court’s order would result in a 21 recommendation that this action be dismissed. ECF No. 10 at 2. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign this 23 matter to a district court judge. 24 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that: 25 1. This action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 41(b). 27 2. All pending motions be terminated. 28 3. The Clerk of Court close this action. ] These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 3 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 4 || with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 5 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 6 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 7 || (Oth Cir. 1991). 8 || Dated: February 8, 2023 / a8 } i | / p , {a ce CAROLYNK. DELANEY 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 12/parr2 192. fta 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28