(PC) Medina v. Amador Jail

Opinion

ANTONIO MEDINA, Case No. 2:22-cv-02136-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AMADOR JAIL, et al., Defendants. On April 7, 2023, I screened plaintiff’s amended complaint and notified him that it did not state cognizable claims. ECF No. 11. I granted him thirty days to file an amended complaint or advisement indicating his intent to stand by his current complaint, subject to a recommendation that it be dismissed. I also warned him that failure to comply with the April 7 order may result in dismissal of this action. Id. at 3. The deadline has passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the April 7, 2023 order.1 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this case. 1 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of April 7 order was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 1. This action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to state a claim, for the reasons set forth in the order. 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case. 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)(). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party 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.” Any response to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 1s IT IS SO ORDERED. q Sty — Dated: _ May 16, 2023 a——— JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE