The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 HAMEED J. BROWN, No. 2:23-cv-02487-CKD P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER AND
14 FLORES, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
15 Defendants.
16
17 By order filed December 22, 2023, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days
18 leave to file an amended complaint was granted. The thirty day period has now expired, and
19 plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. Plaintiff
20 has consented to this court’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 302.
21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign this
22 matter to a district court judge.
23 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See
24 Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
25 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
26 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
27 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
28 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings
1 | and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified
2 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153
3 || (9th Cir. 1991).
4 || Dated: January 30, 2024 Card Kt | (£4 (g—
5 CAROLYN K DELANEY?
6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
1]
12 12/brow2487.fta
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28