(PC) Bennett v. Via Path Technologies

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID BENNETT, No. 2:24-cv-0769-TLN-CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 VIA PATH TECHNOLOGIES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 By order filed May 29, 2025 (ECF No. 16), plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty 19 days leave to file an amended complaint was granted. The time granted for that purpose has 20 expired and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or sought an extension of time to do so. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 22 prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 23 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 24 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 25 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 26 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 27 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 28 //// 1 | failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 2 | Court’s order. Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 | Dated: July 30, 2025 a / dip i 4 CAROLYNK. DELANEY 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 4 8, benn0769.fta 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28