(PC) Barth v. Crume

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SHAWN DAMON BARTH, No. 2:19-cv-0723 TLN AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS Z. CRUME, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 By order filed March 31, 2020, the undersigned screened the first amended complaint and found that it did not state a claim for relief and would not be served. ECF No. 10 at 9. Plaintiff was given thirty days to file an amended complaint and cautioned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Id. Despite being granted multiple extensions of time and being reminded that failing to file an amended complaint would result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed (ECF Nos. 14, 17, 19), plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.

24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the first amended complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim as outlined in the March 31, 2020 screening order. ECF No. 10; L.R. 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

27 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 and serve a copy on all parties. Such a 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. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

6 | DATED: December 15, 2020 ~ 7 Attten— Lhor—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE