(PC) Cunningham v. Sacramento County Sheriffs Office

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 22, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00896
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT CUNNINGHAM, No. 2:23-cv-0896 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 By order filed December 8, 2023, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days 18 leave to file an amended complaint was granted. Thirty days from that date have passed, and 19 plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 20 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is 21 directed to assign a district judge to this case; and 22 IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 23 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 26 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 27 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 28 1 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 2 || failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 3 || Court’s order. Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 | Dated: January 22, 2024 Foci) Aharon 6 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 |) cunnos96.fta 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28