(PC) Windham v. Pike ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES WINDHAM, No. 2:22-cv-2007 TLN KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 MICHAEL PIKE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order filed November 21, 2022, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days 18 leave to file an amended complaint was granted. Thirty days from that date have passed, and 19 plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 21 prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 22 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 23 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 24 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 25 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 26 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 27 //// 28 //// 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: January 4, 2023 ' Foci) Aharon 5 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 || vind2007.Fa 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28