(PC) Jones v. California Medical Facility

Opinion

SCOTT JONES, No. 2:18-cv-2145 AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER and CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY, et FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS al., Defendants. This prisoner civil rights action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c). By order filed December 20, 2019, this court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days. ECF No. 13. The court informed plaintiff that failure to timely file an amended complaint would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Id. at 11. More than thirty days have passed since service of the court’s order. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise communicated with the court, indicating that plaintiff appears to have abandoned this case. //// Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to randomly assign a district judge to this action. Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution. 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)(1). Within fourteen (14) 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: February 4, 2020 ~ Chthien—Chare ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE