(PC) Lake v. Diaz ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN LAKE, No. 2:21-cv-0395 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 RALPH DIAZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On November 6, 2022, plaintiff’s complaint was screened and he was given thirty days 18 leave to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 6. Thirty days from that date have now passed, and 19 plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, nor has he responded to the court’s order in any 20 way. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a 22 District Judge to this case. 23 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice. 24 See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 25 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 26 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 27 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 28 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections 1 | to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 2 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 3 || Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 | DATED: May 23, 2023 ~ 5 Lhar—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28