The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 LANCE BROWN No. 2:18-cv-02494-TLN-CKD P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
14 BRIAN DUFFY, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 By order filed May 24, 2019, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days leave to
18 file an amended complaint was granted. On July 18, 2019, the court granted plaintiff a 60-day
19 extension of time to file his complaint. That 60-day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not
20 filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. Plaintiff has consented
21 to this court’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 302.
22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without
23 prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
26 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
27 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings
28 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified
1 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153
2 | (9th Cir. 1991).
3 || Dated: September 25, 2019 ff Pee a4 / / a i
Carop. Kh. Hoy
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11 12/brow2494 fta.docx
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28