(PS) Wilt v. Pfizer, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MEGHAN WILT, No. 2:24-cv-02060 TLN CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 PFIZER, INC., 15 Defendant. 16 17 By order filed March 12, 2025, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and 28 days’ leave to 18 file an amended complaint was granted. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff was informed that failure to file 19 either an amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal by the required deadline could 20 result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal. (Id. at 5-6.) The 28-day period has now 21 expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint nor otherwise responded to the court’s 22 order. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 24 prejudice. See Local Rule 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, any party may file written 28 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 1 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 2 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 3 || Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 | Dated: May 7, 2025 Cardy it | i } a a 5 CAROLYN K DELANEY? 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 1] 2/wilt2060.fta_fScrs 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28