(PC) Lamon v. Allison

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 29, 2020
• Docket: 2:18-cv-02218
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BARRY LOUIS LAMON, No. 2:18-cv-2218 TLN CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On October 31, 2019, the district court judge assigned to this case ordered that plaintiff 18 “comply with the September 30, 2019 order (ECF No. 20) and file a second amended complaint 19 within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order.” Plaintiff was warned that “[f]ailure to file a 20 second amended complaint in accordance with the September 30, 2019 order may result in dismissal 21 of this action.” Plaintiff has not filed a second amended complaint. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 23 prejudice for failure to follow court orders. See 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 after 26 being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 27 the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 28 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 1 | waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 2 | 1991). 3 || Dated: January 29, 2020 ff Pee a4 / / ) i /- it LE ee 7 4 CAROLYN K. DELANEY 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8] 4 9 lamo2218.fta

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28