(PS) Edmonds v. John Steward Company ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CRAIG ALLEN EDMONDS, No. 2:22-cv-0248 KJM DB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 THE JOHN STEWARD COMPANY, et al., 15 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Craig Allen Edmonds is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was 19 referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 By order signed November 10, 2022, plaintiff’s amended complaint was dismissed and plaintiff 21 was granted leave to file a second amended complaint that cured the defects noted in that order. 22 (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff was granted twenty-eight days from the date of service of the order to file 23 a second amended complaint and was specifically cautioned that the failure to respond to the 24 court’s order in a timely manner would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 25 The twenty-eight-day period has long since expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s 26 order in any manner. 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 28 prejudice. See Local Rule 110; FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). 1 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 2 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 3 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 4 | with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to Magistrate 5 | Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within 6 || the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 7 | 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 8 | Dated: March 30, 2023 9 10 ll ‘BORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 DLB:6 23 | DLB1\orders.pro se\edmonds0248.fta.f&rs 24 25 26 27 28