(PC) Williams v. Mansour

Opinion

MICHAEL TRAVON WILLIAMS, No. 2:20-cv-0616 DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND YASSER MANSOUR, et al., FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. By order filed November 12, 2020, plaintiff’s complaint was screened and found to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim against Dr. Mansour and an Americans with Disabilities Act claim against Gilbert Williams. Plaintiff’s remaining claims were not cognizable as pled. Plaintiff was then granted thirty days to provide notice as to whether he wished to proceed with the complaint as screened, to stand on his complaint, or to dismiss this action entirely. Plaintiff was subsequently granted an extension of time to respond to the screening order. The deadline to file a response has now passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a district judge be assigned to this case; and IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 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)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff 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.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: March 20, 2021 ll ORAH BARNES /DLBT: UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DBAnbox/Routine/will0616.fta