(PS) Sanders v. Sacramento Sheriff's Department

Opinion

SASSUS SANDERS, No. 2:22-cv-1232-TLN-CKD PS Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.

Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint, and then a first amended complaint, seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302(c)(21) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). By order signed and filed on October 24, 2022 (ECF No. 5), the undersigned screened the first amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), advised plaintiff of the deficiencies in the first amended complaint, and granted plaintiff thirty days to file a further amended complaint. Plaintiff was warned that failure to file a further amended complaint would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The time granted for plaintiff to file a further amended complaint has expired. Plaintiff has neither filed a further amended complaint nor sought an extension of time to do so. ] Based on the foregoing, and for the reasons set forth in the October 24, 2022 screening order (ECF No. 5), IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED: 1. This action be dismissed for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); and 2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to close this case. 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: December 15, 2022 / ae □□ / a Ly a CAROLYN K DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8.Sanders22cv1232.fta.fr