(PC) James v. County of Sacramento

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD EUGENE JAMES, No. 2:24-cv-0063 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., ORDER AND 15 Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16 17 On February 21, 2024, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. The 18 amended complaint was due on March 22, 2024, and plaintiff has not filed an amended 19 complaint. 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court assign a district 21 court judge to this case; and 22 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See 23 Local Rule 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 waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 2 | Cir. 1991). 3 | Dated: April 2, 2024 Card Kt | / 4 L , ag. — 4 CAROLYNK.DELANEY 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9} 1 10 jame0063.fta 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28