(PC) Collins v. Marfil

Opinion

BOBBY LEE COLLINS, No. 2:24-cv-1091-CKD P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS J. MARFIL, et al., Defendants.

By order filed April 1, 2025 (ECF No. 15), plaintiff’s first amended complaint was dismissed and 30 days leave to file a further amended complaint was granted. The time granted for this purpose has expired and plaintiff has not filed a further amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. In recommending this action be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute, the court considers the following factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff has not stated a claim and has failed with the court’s order to file a further amended complaint even though plaintiff was specifically cautioned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (See ECF No. 15 at 4.) Accordingly, this action should be dismissed for plaintiff's failure to prosecute. For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case; and IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 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)(I). Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff 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.” 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: May 14, 2025 fed) / dha MIG f- A. CAROLYNK.DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8, coll1091 .fia.fr