The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 GEORGE SCOTT, No. 2:23-cv-2749-TLN-SCR P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
14 E. BROWN, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17
18 By order filed October 4, 2024, the court found plaintiff’s complaint did not state any
19 claim for relief and granted sixty days leave to file an amended complaint. The time granted for
20 that purpose has expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, or otherwise
21 responded to the court’s order.
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 21 days after
26 being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with
27 the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to
28 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file
1 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.
2 | Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
3 | DATED: December 12, 2024
4
5 .
6 SEAN C. RIORDAN
7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28