From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Muhammad v. Azevedo

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 1, 2021
2:21-cv-0894 KJM DB P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2021)

Opinion

2:21-cv-0894 KJM DB P

11-01-2021

ANSAR EL MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff, v. D. AZEVEDO, et al., Defendants.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §1983. On August 5, 2021, this court dismissed plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff was given 60 days to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 8.) Those 60 days have passed and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to this court's August 5 order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for plaintiff's failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. See E.D. Cal. R. 110; Fed.R.Civ.P. 41.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty days 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 may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).


Summaries of

Muhammad v. Azevedo

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 1, 2021
2:21-cv-0894 KJM DB P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2021)
Case details for

Muhammad v. Azevedo

Case Details

Full title:ANSAR EL MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff, v. D. AZEVEDO, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 1, 2021

Citations

2:21-cv-0894 KJM DB P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2021)