(PC) Brooks v. Covello ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARTHUR BROOKS, JR., No. 2:22-cv-01967-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 PATRICK COVELLO, et al., FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order filed May 19, 2023, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days leave to 18 file an amended complaint was granted. Thirty days from that date have now passed, and 19 plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign this 21 matter to a district court judge. 22 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See 23 Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 26 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 27 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 28 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 1 | failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 2 | Court’s order. Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 | Dated: July 5, 2023 aie A / ap 4 4 CAROLYNK. DELANEY 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 | 12A:001967.fa 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28