(HC) Afzal v. Kay

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MUHAMMAD TAHSEEN AFZAL, No. 2:20-cv-1614 AC P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS WENDY KAY, 15 Respondent.

17 By order filed February 19, 2021, the undersigned screened the petition and found that it did not state any cognizable claims. ECF No. 10. Petitioner was given thirty days to file an amended petition and cautioned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Id. at 2-3. After petitioner failed to file an amended petition, he was given an additional twenty-one days to amend the petition and warned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. ECF No. 12. Twenty-one days have now passed, and petitioner has not filed an amended petition or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action.

27 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the petition be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for the reasons set forth in the February 19, 2021 Screening Order (ECF No. 1 10). See L.R. 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

2 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)(1). Within fourteen days || after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner 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.” Petitioner is advised that || failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District | Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

9 || DATED: May 13, 2021 ~ 10 Chthion— Chore ALLISON CLAIRE 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE