(PS) Butler v. Dozier ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN MICHAEL BUTLER, No. 2:22-cv-0226 DAD DB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 LACHELLE DOZIER, et al., 15 Defendants, 16 17 Plaintiff Kevin Michael Butler is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was 18 referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 19 By order signed April 18, 2022, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed, and plaintiff was granted 20 leave to file an amended complaint that cured the defects noted in that order. (ECF No. 4.) 21 Plaintiff was granted twenty-eight days from the date of that order to file the amended complaint 22 and was specifically cautioned that the failure to respond to the court’s order in a timely manner 23 could result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (Id. at 7.) The twenty-eight-day 24 period has expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order in any manner. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 26 prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 27 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 28 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 1 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 2 | with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to Magistrate 3 | Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within 4 | the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal the District Court’s 5 || order. See Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 | Dated: October 20, 2022 7 8 9 ‘BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 DLB:6 25 | DBiorders\orders.pro se\butler0226.fta.f&rs 26 27 28