(PC) Wright v. Naranjo

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEWAYNE A. WRIGHT, No. 2:24-cv-2983 CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 OFFICER J. NARANJO, 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order filed April 9, 2025, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed, and thirty days leave to 18 file an amended complaint was granted. On May 14, 2025, plaintiff was granted an additional 19 thirty days in which to file an amended complaint. Thirty days from that date have now expired, 20 and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 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 RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 24 110; 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 5 || Dated: July 7, 2025 □□□ Spo | CHI SOO KIM 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 |] //wrig2983.fta 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28