(PC) Harris v. Solano County Sheriffs Department ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEORGE HARRIS, No. 2:21-cv-0688 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SOLANO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On January 23, 2023, plaintiff was ordered to file a first amended complaint and to do so 19 within thirty days. ECF No. 13. This was the second time that the court had ordered plaintiff to 20 do so. See ECF No. 9 at 2 (order issued 11/4/22). More than thirty days have passed, and 21 plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, nor has he responded to the court’s order in any 22 way. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a 24 District Judge to this matter. 25 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice. 26 See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 27 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 28 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 1 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 2 || with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections 3 || to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 4 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 5 || Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 || DATED: March 8, 2023 ~ 7 Ctlhter— Lane ALLISON CLAIRE 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28