(PC) Dekharn v. Rojas

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAMSON DEKHARN, No. 2:23-cv-00706 KJM DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 A. ROJAS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 By order filed November 2, 2023 (ECF No. 9), plaintiff’s complaint was screened and 19 found not to not state any cognizable claims. The court granted plaintiff thirty days leave to file 20 an amended complaint. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to respond to the order would result in 21 a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The time granted has expired and plaintiff has 22 not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 24 prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 25 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 26 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 27 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 28 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 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 3, 2024 5 6 7 | pis7 UNUIED SITES MAUISHOHE JUDGE dekh0706.fta 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28