(PS) Samuelian v. CA Franchise Tax Board

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SANDRA C. SAMUELIAN, No. 2:19-cv-01333 KJM AC (PS) 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, et al., 14 Defendants.

16 Plaintiff, who paid the filing fee in this case, is proceeding pro se. The action was accordingly referred to the undersigned for pretrial purposes by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21). On October 22, 2019, the court issued an order notifying plaintiff that her deadline to complete service of process on defendants had passed and requiring her to show cause by November 4, 2019 why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 11. The court informed plaintiff that filing proof of service would discharge the order to show cause, and cautioned her that failure to timely complete service or show good cause as to why service has been delayed would result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Id. On October 23, 2019, plaintiff filed a document that appears to be a letter sent to her by the John Hancock Benefits Plan entitled “Important Notice from John Hancock About Your Prescription Drug Coverage and Medicare.” ECF No. 12. This document is not responsive to the court’s order to show cause, and there remains no indication that service has been completed or will be completed.

1 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without || prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court’s order. See Fed. R. || Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110.

4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge || assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within twenty-one (21) || days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written || objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate □□□□□□ || Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.

10 | Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

11 | DATED: November 6, 2019 . ~ 12 Chthterr—Clhor—e_ 13 ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE