(PC) Mitchum v. Honea ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL ERNEST MITCHUM, JR., No. 2:22-cv-2313 DAD CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 KORY HONEA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 29, 2023, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 35. On 19 January 8, 2024, plaintiff was ordered to file a response to the motion within thirty days. ECF No. 20 39. In the same order, plaintiff was informed that failure to file a response would result in a 21 recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The thirty day 22 period has now expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order. 23 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be 24 dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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, 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 filed and served 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: February 20, 2024 Card Kt | i, 4 Ly / g— 6 CAROLYN K DELANEY? 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 1 mite2313.46fr 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28