(PC) Smith v. Brockway ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GARY PAUL SMITH, No. 2:22-cv-1932 DAD KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 BROCKWAY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order filed December 16, 2022, plaintiff was ordered to show cause, within thirty days, 18 why his action should not be terminated because it was improvidently opened as a new case. The 19 twenty-one day period expired, and plaintiff has not shown cause or otherwise responded to the 20 court’s order. 21 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See 22 Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 23 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 24 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 25 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 26 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 27 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 28 //// 1] || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 2 | (9th Cir. 1991). 3 || Dated: January 26, 2023 ' Foci) Aharon 5 KENDALL J. NE emit 1932.foc UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28