(PC)Miller v. Moseley

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ELIJAH LEE MILLER, No. 2: 21-cv-2252 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER & FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS HOWARD E. MOSELEY, 15 Defendant.

17 By order filed January 13, 2022, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days leave to file an amended complaint was granted. Thirty days from that date have now passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Instead, on January 21, 2022, plaintiff filed the Notice of Amendment form attached to the January 13, 2022 order. (ECF No. 9.) Attached to the Notice of Amendment form is a copy of the January 13, 2022 order. (Id.) 22 Based on plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint within thirty days of the January 13, 2022 order, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed.

24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall appoint a district judge to this action; and 26 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

28 //// ] 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, 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).

8 | Dated: February 18, 2022 Foci) Aharon 10 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] 14 Mill2252.fta