(PC) Hill v. Rios

Opinion

CYMEYON HILL, No. 2:18-cv-3089 MCE AC P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DAVID BAUGHMAN, et al., Defendants. By order issued August 12, 2019, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed, and he was directed to file an amended complaint within thirty days. ECF No. 16. More than thirty days from that date have now passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Instead, on August 26, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to disqualify a magistrate judge in a completely different action (ECF No. 17), and on September 13, 2019, plaintiff filed objections to the court’s denial of his motion to disqualify (ECF No. 20). The court notes that on September 17, 2019, its September 3, 2019 order denying plaintiff’s motion to disqualify was returned to the court as undeliverable. There is no indication in the record, however, that the August 12 order directing plaintiff to file an amended complaint was not received by plaintiff. Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiff was well aware of his obligation to file an amended complaint within thirty days. Moreover, the fact that plaintiff has instead filed other, unrelated documents since the court directed him to file an amended complaint Gee, e.g., ECF Nos. 17, 20), further supports a finding that plaintiff was capable of filing an amended complaint in a timely fashion, yet has failed to do so. 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)(). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a 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: September 30, 2019 ~ Chthien—Chare ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE