The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
KHALIL ALEXANDER KELLY,
7 Case No. 22-cv-02519-YGR (PR)
Plaintiff,
8
v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
9 PREJUDICE
SAN MATEO COUNTY
10 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, et al.,
11 Defendants.
a 12 On September 23, 2022, the Court issued an order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint with
13 || leave to amend within twenty-eight days from the date of the order. The Court informed plaintiff
v 14 || that failure to file a timely amended complaint would result in the dismissal of his action with
©
15 || prejudice. Twenty-eight days have passed and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or
4 16 || communicated with the Court in any manner.
17 Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Yourish v.
18 California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 989, 992 (9th Cir. 1999) (affirming dismissal of action with
19 || prejudice when plaintiff failed to amend complaint after receiving leave to do so, because
20 || expeditious resolution of litigation, the court’s need to manage its docket, and avoiding prejudice
21 to defendants favored dismissal).
22 The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions and close the file.
23 IT IS SO ORDERED.
24 Dated: October 28, 2022
25 Ns Qos Heabho—leteo
06 JUDGE YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
United States District Judge
27
28