(PC) Hernandez v. Mule Creek State Prison

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PABLO HERNANDEZ, No. 2:20-cv-0817 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 MULE CREEK STATE PRISON, 15 Defendant. 16 17 By order filed April 30, 2020, plaintiff was advised that he must file a complaint in order 18 to commence an action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 3. Plaintiff was granted thirty days to file a complaint, 19 and was cautioned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this matter be 20 dismissed. Thirty days from that date have now passed, and plaintiff has not filed a complaint, or 21 otherwise responded to the court’s order. 22 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is 23 directed to assign a district judge to this case; and 24 IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 25 110; 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 thirty days after 28 being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with wOASe COU UN VMVO LEU PERINUINGIN MUMVUPTOCTIL □□ POR ee PAY eT

1 | 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. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 | Dated: June 23, 2020 ° Fens Arn 7 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 | memosi7.fta 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28