(PC) Iseli v. State of CA (CDCR) ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDEN WILLIE ISELI, No. 2:22-cv-1792 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SATE OF CALIFORNIA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 By order filed October 19, 2022, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days leave 18 to file an amended complaint was granted. On December 8, 2022, plaintiff was granted an 19 additional thirty days in which to file an amended complaint. Thirty days from that date have 20 passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, or otherwise responded to the court’s 21 order.1 22 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is 23 directed to assign a district judge to this case; and 24 IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 25 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 26 27 1 Plaintiff filed multiple notices and one supplement, most of which bear all of plaintiff’s case numbers for cases he has filed in the Eastern District (ECF Nos. 15-18), but none of these filings 28 are an amended complaint, and none of them respond to the October 19, 2022 order. ] 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, plaintiff may file written objections 4 || 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.” Plaintiff is advised that 6 || failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 7 || Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 8 | Dated: January 23, 2023 Foci) Aharon 10 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 |) sett 792.6 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28