(PC) Boddie v. Martel

Opinion

ALEXANDER BODDIE, No. 2:18-cv-1196 AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MICHAEL MARTEL, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On March 9, 2020, plaintiff was directed to file a first amended complaint within thirty days. See ECF No. 9 at 8. At that time, plaintiff was warned that failure to timely file the amended complaint might result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. See id. at 8. Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint. As a result, on April 27, 2020, the undersigned ordered plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for for failure to prosecute and for failure to obey a court order. See ECF No. 12. Once again, plaintiff was given thirty days to comply with the court’s order, and he was warned that failure to do so might result in a recommendation that this matter be dismissed. See id. at 2. wOAoOe 2.40 UV VEEYY PRINCE MVOC BO POO Ee AY ev

More than thirty days have passed, and plaintiff has failed to file a showing of cause or respond to the court’s April 27, 2020 order in any way. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a District Court Judge to this action. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and for failure to obey a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also L.R. 110. 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 twenty-one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). DATED: June 9, 2020 ~ Chthien—Chare ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE