(PC) Brown v. Berumen ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JONATHAN Q. BROWN, No. 2:21-cv-02187 AC P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 S. BERUMEN, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 On August 10, 2023, plaintiff was ordered to show cause in writing, within twenty-one 17 days, why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 26. In the 18 alternative, plaintiff was given the option to file a response to defendants’ motion for summary 19 judgment. Id. at 2. 20 More than twenty-one days have passed, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s 21 order in any way. Therefore, it will be recommended that this matter be dismissed. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a 23 District Judge to this action. 24 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice 25 for failure to obey a court order and for failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 41(b). 27 //// 28 //// ] These findings and recommendations are 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, any party may file written 4 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 5 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 6 || objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 7 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 8 | appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 9 || DATED: September 12, 2023. 10 ~ Chthwen— Clare ALLISON CLAIRE 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28