(PC) Ausborn v. CHCF

Opinion

RANDY AUSBORN, No. 2:20-cv-593-KJM-JDP P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CHCF, et. al., Defendants. Plaintiff proceeds without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). OnApril 23, 2020,the court screened plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. ECFNo. 8. The court dismissed the complaint, explained the deficiencies therein, and granted plaintiff thirty days in which to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies. Id. The screening order warned plaintiff that failure to comply would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Despite a 60-day extension of time granted on July 1, 2020 (ECF No. 13), the time for acting has passed and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or responded to the order granting the 60-day extension of time. Thus, it appears that plaintiff is unableor unwillingto cure the defects in the complaint. Accordingly,it is RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice for the reasons set forth in the April 23, 2020screening order (ECF No. 8). ///// wOASe 2 OVE SING INI VET MUO LO POM ANI Ee OY OO

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner vy. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Vist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: October 6, 2020