Opinion
2:23-cv-0034 DB P
09-11-2023
JAMES ESCO JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. VEER BABU et al., Defendants.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On June 8, 2023, the court dismissed plaintiff's first amended complaint (ECF No. 11) for failure to state a claim and granted plaintiff thirty days to file a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff did not file a second amended complaint or otherwise respond to the court's order.
On July 27, 2023, the court issued an order directing plaintiff to file a second amended complaint or show cause in writing why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff was granted thirty days to respond to the order and warned that failure to comply would result in a recommendation that this acti on be dismissed. (Id.)
Those thirty days have passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court's order. Therefore, the undersigned will recommend this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. R. 110.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a district judge to this action.
IT IS RECOMMENDED that:
1. This action be dismissed without prejudice; 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 (14) 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. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).