From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bell v. Warden

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 9, 2021
2:21-cv-0534 CKD P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2021)

Opinion

2:21-cv-0534 CKD P

08-09-2021

KEVIN BELL, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN, Defendant.


ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

By order filed June 30, 2021, plaintiff's amended complaint was dismissed and thirty days leave to file a second amended complaint was granted. The thirty-day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed a second amended complaint.

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

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).


Summaries of

Bell v. Warden

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 9, 2021
2:21-cv-0534 CKD P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2021)
Case details for

Bell v. Warden

Case Details

Full title:KEVIN BELL, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Aug 9, 2021

Citations

2:21-cv-0534 CKD P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2021)