(PC) Kjeldergaard v. Easmon ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NICKOLAS GORDON No. 2:22-cv-01283-WBS-CKD P KJELDERGAARD, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER v. 14 EASMON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order filed August 28, 2023, plaintiff’s first amended complaint was dismissed and 18 thirty days leave to file a second amended complaint was granted. Thirty days from that date 19 have now passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, or otherwise responded to the 20 court’s order. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action is dismissed without 22 prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 23 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 24 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 25 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 26 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 27 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 28 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 1 |} Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 2 | Dated: October 13, 2023 Cad □ ft | Lz ae 3 CAROLYN DELANEY SS 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 | 12/kjel1283.fta 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28