(PC) Rojas v. County of Sacramento ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT EUGENE ROJAS, No. 2:22-cv-01205 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order filed January 18, 2023, plaintiff’s complaint was found not to state a cognizable 18 claim and thirty days leave to file an amended complaint was granted. More than thirty days 19 from that date have now passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise 20 responded to the court’s order. 21 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is 22 directed to assign a district judge to this case; and 23 IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 24 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 25 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 26 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 27 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 28 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 1 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 2 | failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 3 | Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (th Cir. 1991). 4 | Dated: March 22, 2023 5 6 71 oy ‘BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE rojal205.fta.no.dj 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28