1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VAN J. ROSS, Case No.: 17-CV-1676 JLS (JLB)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

14 PADRES LP, et al.,

15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On March 28, 2019, the Court granted Defendants Padres, L.P., Christina Hall, and 19 Ian Graham’s unopposed motion to dismiss and dismissed Plaintiff Van J. Ross’ First 20 Amended Complaint. ECF No. 39. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended 21 complaint within thirty days, noting that “[f]ailure to file within the time allotted may result 22 in the dismissal of this action in its entirety.” Id. Plaintiff has not filed an amended 23 complaint or filed for an extension of time. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 24 Procedure 41(b), the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this action in its 25 entirety for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s March 28, 2019 26 Order. See Lira v. Herrera,

(9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not 27 take advantage of the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the 28 /// 1 || dismissal of the complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”). The Clerk of Court 2 || SHALL CLOSE the file. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: October 3, 2019 . tt 5 jen Janis L. Sammartino 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28