(PC) Harris v. California Forensic Medical Group

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTOINE W. HARRIS, No. 2:19-cv-02020 DB P

Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 17

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims defendants acted with negligence and committed medical malpractice. By order dated October 15, 2020, the court screened the complaint and determined it did not contain any cognizable claims. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff was given sixty days leave to file an amended complaint and warned that failure to file an amended complaint would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (ECF No. 6 at 13.) On October 30, 2020, plaintiff filed notice of change of address. (ECF No. 9.) The court’s October 15, 2020 order was re- served on the plaintiff on November 2, 2020.

Sixty days have passed from the re-service of the court’s October 15, 2020 order. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, requested additional time to file an amended complaint, or otherwise responded to the court’s order. Accordingly, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.

For the reasons state above, the Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to randomly assign a district judge to this action.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

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 thirty 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).

DATED: April 26, 2021 DB:14 DB:1/Orders/Prisoner/Civil.Rights/R/harr2020.f&r.dism