(PC) Ramos v. California Dept of Corrections ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE RAMOS, No. 2:22-cv-00004 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CALIFORNIA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS, 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order filed September 16, 2022, the court found plaintiff’s complaint did not state a 18 claim and granted thirty days leave to file an amended complaint. On November 2, 2022, the 19 court granted plaintiff an additional 90 days in which to file an amended complaint. That time 20 has expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the 21 court’s order. 22 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is 23 directed to assign a district judge to this case; and 24 IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 25 110; 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 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 3 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 4 | failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 5 | Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (th Cir. 1991). 6 | Dated: March 24, 2023 7 8 9} oes ‘BORAH BARNES 00d. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28