(PC) Mazon v. Radu

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: May 13, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00554
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FERNANDO MAZON, No. 2:25-cv-0554 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 RADU, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 On March 31, 2025, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff 18 was warned that failure to file an amended complaint before the expiration of the deadline for 19 doing so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice. The 20 time for filing an amended complaint has expired. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court assign a district 22 court judge to this case; and 23 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See 24 Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 25 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 26 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 27 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 28 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 1 | and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 2 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 3 || (9th Cir. 1991). 4 | Dated: May 13, 2025 Card ke yy a 5 CAROLYN K DELANEY? 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 |. 8 9} 1 10 mazo0554.fta 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28