From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ausborn v. CHCF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 1, 2020
No. 2:19-cv-2220 CKD P (E.D. Cal. May. 1, 2020)

Opinion

No. 2:19-cv-2220 CKD P

05-01-2020

RANDY AUSBORN, Plaintiff, v. CHCF, et al., Defendants.


ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On March 19, 2020, plaintiff's pleadings were dismissed and thirty days leave to file a fourth amended complaint was granted. The thirty-day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed a fourth amended complaint.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court assign a district court judge to this case; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 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 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: May 1, 2020

/s/_________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1
ausb2220.fta


Summaries of

Ausborn v. CHCF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 1, 2020
No. 2:19-cv-2220 CKD P (E.D. Cal. May. 1, 2020)
Case details for

Ausborn v. CHCF

Case Details

Full title:RANDY AUSBORN, Plaintiff, v. CHCF, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: May 1, 2020

Citations

No. 2:19-cv-2220 CKD P (E.D. Cal. May. 1, 2020)