(PC) Valenzuela v. Thorntona

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIO P. VALENZUELA, No. 2:23-cv-02494-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 THORNTONA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 By an order filed January 22, 2024, plaintiff was ordered to file a signed complaint and 18 was cautioned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be 19 dismissed. ECF No. 8. The thirty-day period has expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the 20 court’s order and has not filed a signed complaint. 21 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is 22 directed to assign a district judge to this case; and 23 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice and all 24 pending motions (ECF Nos. 2, 7) terminated. 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 and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 1 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 2 | failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 3 | Court’s order. Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 5 || Dated: March 25, 2024 or Mi, / Lin- Lal lige LZHEYKo 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28