(PC) Diaz v. Hurley

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MIGUEL ENRIQUE DIAZ, No. 2:19-cv-1241 KJM KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS ASSOCIATE WARDEN HURLEY, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 By order filed November 30, 2020, plaintiff was granted one final extension of time to file an amended complaint that complied with the June 11, 2020 order. The undersigned noted that plaintiff has had over five months to draft his amended complaint, and no further extensions of time would be granted. (ECF No. 42 at 2, 3.) Thirty days from November 30, 2020, have now passed, and plaintiff has not filed a complete amended complaint that complies with the June 11, 2020 order.1 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

1 On December 7, 2020, the undersigned addressed plaintiff’s unsigned and incomplete amended complaint, which was apparently submitted to prison officials for mailing on November 19, 2020 (ECF No. 44 at 1), prior to the issuance of the court’s order granting plaintiff an extension of time. (ECF No. 45.) Because plaintiff had already been granted an extension of time, his request for extension was denied as moot. (Id.) 1 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)(). Within twenty-one 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).

8 | Dated: January 22, 2021 Fens Arn 10 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE LL jaiazt241.tta