(PC) Davis v. Unknown

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 8, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-02358
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL DAVIS, No. 2:23-cv-2358 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER & FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 UNKNOWN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order filed November 13, 2023, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days 18 leave to file an amended complaint was granted. (ECF No. 14.) On January 2, 2024, the court 19 granted plaintiff a second thirty days extension of time to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 20 20.) Thirty days from January 2, 2024 have now passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended 21 complaint, or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall appoint a 23 district judge to this action; and 24 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See 25 Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 26 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 27 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 28 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 1 | with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 2 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 3 || failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 4 | Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 || Dated: February 8, 2024 aie } Kt | Ld , a sia 6 CAROLYNK. DELANEY 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 |) pava3ss.fia 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28