(PC) Vasquez v. Market Square

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE GUADALUPE VASQUEZ, No. 2:24-cv-0684 TLN AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 MARKET SQUARE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order filed April 1, 2025, the complaint was screened and found to not state a claim for 18 relief. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff was given thirty days to file an amended complaint and cautioned 19 that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Id. at 4. 20 After plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint, he was given an additional twenty-one days to 21 amend the complaint and warned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this 22 action be dismissed without further warning. ECF No. 13. Twenty-one days have now passed, 23 and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed for 25 failure to state a claim for the reasons set forth in the April 1, 2025, Screening Order (ECF No. 26 10). See L.R. 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 27 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 28 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 1 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 2 || with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections 3 || to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 4 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 5 || Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 || DATED: July 28, 2025 ~ 7 Htttenr— Lhor—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28