(PC) Hernandez v. Macomber

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALFREDO HERNANDEZ, No. 2:22-cv-0964 SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 JEFF MACOMBER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 18 U.S.C. §1983. On July 27, 2024, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 19 33.) In a notice filed September 11, defendants informed the court that they re-served plaintiff 20 with the motion on that date. (ECF No. 36.) When plaintiff did not file a timely response to 21 defendants’ motion, the court gave plaintiff twenty-one days to file a response and an explanation 22 why he was unable to file a timely response. (Oct. 31, 2024 Order; ECF No. 37.) Twenty-one 23 days have passed and plaintiff has not filed a response to defendants’ motion for summary 24 judgment or any sort of response to the court’s October 31 order. 25 In the October 31 order, this court warned plaintiff that if he failed to file a response to the 26 summary judgment motion or failed to show good cause for his failure to file a timely response, 27 this court would recommend this action be dismissed. (ECF No. 37 at 2.) 28 //// ] Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court Is HEREBY ORDERED to randomly assign a district 2 || judge to this case. 3 Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 33) be 4 || denied without prejudice and this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and 5 | failure to follow court orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; E.D. Cal. R. 110. 6 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 7 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days 8 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, either party may file written 9 || objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's 10 | Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 11 || specified time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. 12 | Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). !3 | DATED: December 10, 2024 14 15 mh 16 SEAN C. RIORDAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28