(PC) Craver v. Tran

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ANDRE RAMON CRAVER, No. 2:20-cv-1714 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND T. TRAN, FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendant.

17 By order filed January 11, 2021, plaintiff’s complaint was screened and found to state a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim against defendant T. Tran. Plaintiff’s remaining claims against this defendant were deemed non-cognizable. Plaintiff was then granted thirty days to provide notice as to whether he wished to proceed with the complaint as screened, to stand on his complaint, or to dismiss this action entirely. Thirty days from that date have now passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a district judge be assigned to this case; and 24 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED 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).

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.

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

6 | Dated: March 20, 2021 9 ORAH BARNES /DLBI. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE |) DBAnbox/Routine/crav1714.fta