(PC) Harrison v. Birtwell

Opinion

MICHAEL HARRISON, No. 2:24-cv-1413 DC CSK P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS BIRTWELL, et al., Defendants. By order filed August 5, 2024, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed, and thirty days leave to file an amended complaint was granted. (ECF No. 8.) On October 28, 2024, plaintiff filed a motion to stay, which was denied on November 7, 2024. (ECF Nos. 12, 13.) Instead, plaintiff was granted an additional sixty days to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 13.) Sixty days from that date have now expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 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)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The 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: January 16, 2025 □□□ Spo | CHI SOO KIM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE /Wnarrl413.ftaext 1]