(PS) McGee v. State of CA

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFERSON A. McGEE, No. 2:24-cv-00012 TLN AC (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The action was accordingly referred to the 18 undersigned for pretrial matters by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21). On September 6, 19 2024, the court declared plaintiff a vexations litigant and ordered him to comply with specified 20 requirements contained in a pre-filing order if he wished to continue prosecuting this case. ECF 21 No. 216. Plaintiff had 30 days to comply with the requirements. Id. More than 30 days have 22 passed, and plaintiff has taken no further action in this case. 23 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to 24 comply with the court order. 25 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 26 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one (21) 27 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 28 objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 1 || Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 2 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 3 || Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 | DATED: October 15, 2024 ~ 5 AMttun—Clone_ ALLISON CLAIRE 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