(PC) Hall v. Macomber ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEMAGEO HALL, No. 2:20-cv-1701 KJM CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 JEFF MACOMBER, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 On January 12, 2023, this court directed plaintiff to file a pretrial statement within 30 days 18 and plaintiff was warned that failure to file a pretrial statement within 30 days would result in a 19 recommendation that his action be dismissed. Plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order. 20 Accordingly, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. 21 R. Civ. P. 41(b). 22 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants are relieved 23 from filing a pretrial statement; and 24 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 26 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 27 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 28 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 1 | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 2 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 3 || objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 4 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 5 || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 | Dated: February 27, 2023 / aie } Kt | / } a a 7 CAROLYN K DELANEY 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 | 4 D hall1701.fpt(2) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28