(PC) Brown v. Duffy

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LANCE BROWN No. 2:18-cv-02494-TLN-CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BRIAN DUFFY, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 By order filed May 24, 2019, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days leave to file an amended complaint was granted. On July 18, 2019, the court granted plaintiff a 60-day extension of time to file his complaint. That 60-day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. Plaintiff has consented 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 prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 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 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 | (9th Cir. 1991).

3 || Dated: September 25, 2019 ff Pee a4 / / a i Carop. Kh. Hoy CAROLYN K. DELANEY 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12/brow2494 fta.docx