(PC) Davis v. Hord ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTIAN DAVIS, No. 2:21-cv-02114-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 HORD, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 9, 2022, defendant Hord filed a motion for summary judgment. 19 ECF No. 22. On January 25, 2023, the court warned plaintiff that failure to respond to the motion 20 could result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. ECF No. 26. The time for 21 responding to the motion has passed, and plaintiff failed to file an opposition, a statement of non- 22 opposition, or otherwise respond to the motion or the court’s order. Plaintiff has disobeyed this 23 court’s orders and failed to prosecute this action. The appropriate action is dismissal without 24 prejudice. 25 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a United States 26 District Judge to this action. 27 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. 28 R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. ] 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, any party may file written 4 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 5 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 6 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 7 || Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 8 9 | Dated: February 27, 2023. □□ PDEA 10 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28