(PS) Aderholt v. Edwards ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL ADERHOLT, No. 2:23-cv-0289 DJC DB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 ANN EDWARDS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Daniel Aderholt is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to 18 the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). By order 19 signed May 5, 2023, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and plaintiff was granted leave to file an 20 amended complaint that cured the defects noted in that order. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff was 21 granted twenty-eight days from the date of service of the order to file an amended complaint and 22 was specifically cautioned that the failure to respond to the court’s order in a timely manner 23 would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The twenty-eight-day period has 24 long since expired and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order in any manner. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 26 prejudice. See Local Rule 110; FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). 27 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 28 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 1 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 2 | with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to Magistrate 3 | Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within 4 | the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal the District Court’s 5 || order. See Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 | Dated: November 6, 2023 7 8 9 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 | DLB:6 DB/orders/orders.pro se/aderholt0289.fta.f&rs 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28