(PC) Birrell v. Fox ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID WESLEY BIRRELL, et al., No. 2:16-cv-1818 KJM CKD P 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 ROBERT W. FOX, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiffs are state prisoners proceeding pro se and individually. On May 10, 2019, this 18 matter was stayed to permit plaintiffs to find representation. On June 29, 2022, the court ordered 19 that, within 21days, plaintiffs file a status report indicating whether they have obtained counsel 20 and, if not, whether they wish to pursue this matter pro se. Plaintiffs were warned that failure to 21 respond to this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Plaintiffs 22 Deegan, Toussaint, Moore, Alvarez, Lownes and Alford have not responded to the court’s order. 23 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs Deegan, 24 Toussaint, Moore, Alvarez, Lownes and Alford be dismissed. 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, any party may file written 28 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 1 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 2 || objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 3 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 4 | appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 | Dated: August 4, 2022 Card ht fa □□ he 6 CAROLYN K DELANEY? 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 1 birr1818.frs 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28