(PC) Bates v. Darling

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WILLIAM BATES, No. 2:21-cv-1613 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS CHAD DARLING, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 By order filed January 18, 2022, plaintiff was granted thirty days in which to notify the court whether he elects to proceed on his Eighth Amendment claims as to defendants Darling, Condon, Maloney and Stuhr, or whether he opted to amend his complaint and delay service of process. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to respond to the court’s order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Thirty days from that date have passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

23 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case; and 25 IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

27 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 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).

6 | Dated: March 24, 2022 Foci) Aharon 8 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE |) patei613.tta 1]