(PC) Clark v. Burger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALPHONSO RAMON CLARK, No. 2:20-cv-0432 AC P

Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a former county prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed October 27, 2021, plaintiff was ordered to show cause, within thirty days, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to identify and serve the only remaining defendant. ECF No. 22. The thirty-day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not shown cause or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

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

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to identify and serve the only remaining defendant and for failure to follow court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); L.R. 110.

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 twenty-one 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. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: December 20, 2021 ~ Lhar—e_

ALLISON CLAIRE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE