(HC) Bailey v. Warden ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRENT EUGENE BAILEY, No. 2:23-cv-01087-EFB (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 WARDEN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner proceeds without counsel in an action brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This 18 proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 19 On April 24, 2024, the court dismissed the petition with leave to amend within 30 days. 20 ECF No. 6. The time for acting has now passed and petitioner has not filed an amended 21 complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. Thus, it appears that petitioner is unable 22 or unwilling to cure the defects in the petition. 23 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a district judge to 24 this action. 25 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice for the 26 reasons stated in the April 24, 2024 order. 27 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 28 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 1 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 2 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 3 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 4 || objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 5 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 6 | appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 7 | v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Hr /ZZ, 9 | Dated: June 14, 2024 LA CT bt, oat CLHECAI 10 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28