(PC) Roberson v. Hickman ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLARENCE LONNELL ROBERSON, No. 2:23-cv-01423 SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 J. HICKMAN, et al., FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order filed April 3, 2024, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days leave to 18 file an amended complaint was granted. (ECF No. 11.) On May 23, 2024, plaintiff was granted an 19 additional 90 days in which to file an amended complaint. The time granted has expired and 20 plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 21 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall assign a district judge to 22 this case. 23 In addition, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See 24 Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 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 21 days after 27 being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 28 the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 1 | Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 2 || may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 3 | 1991). 4 | DATED: September 23, 2024 SEAN C. RIORDAN 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28