(PC) Williams v. Newsom

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD WILLIAMS, No. 2:20-cv-0100 AC P

Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On June 6, 2021, the complaint was screened and plaintiff was given thirty days leave to file a first amended complaint. ECF No. 7. On July 13, 2021, plaintiff was granted an additional sixty days within which to file his amended complaint. ECF No. 11. Sixty days from that date have now expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

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

IT IS FURTHER 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)(1).. Within twenty-one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The 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. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (th Cir. 1991).

DATED: October 13, 2021 ~ Lhar—e_

ALLISON CLAIRE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1]