(PC) Matlock v. Kern County

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 RICHARD A. MATLOCK, CASE NO. 1:19-cv-1368 NONE JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY 13 v. WITH COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE KERN COUNTY, et al., FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants.

17 By order filed December 7, 2020, the Court granted plaintiff an extension of time to file a response to the court’s screening order. The 45-day period has now passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. Accordingly, the court RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

22 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.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 Dated: March 2, 2021 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE