(PC) Jacques v. Tillery

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MICHAEL EURELLE JACQUES, No. 2:23-cv-0079 KJN P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 D. TILLERY, 14 Defendant. 15 16 By order filed June 29, 2023, plaintiff was ordered to show cause, within thirty days, why 17 decedent D. Tillery, the sole defendant, and this action should not be dismissed. The thirty day 18 period has now expired, and plaintiff has not shown cause or otherwise responded to the court’s 19 order. 20 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is 21 directed to assign a district judge to this case; and 22 IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 23 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 26 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 27 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 28 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 1 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 2 | (9th Cir. 1991). 3 || Dated: August 1, 2023 ' Foci) Aharon 5 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ° fjacq0079.fsc 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28