(PC)Hopkins v. State of California

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MICHAEL HOPKINS, No. 2:20-cv-2084 KJM AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 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.

20 On December 29, 2021, plaintiff’s complaint was screened, and he was ordered to file an amended complaint and to do so within thirty days. ECF No. 11. Thirty days from that date have now passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, nor has he responded to the court’s order in any way.

24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

26 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. 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).

5 || DATED: April 22, 2022 A / ~ 6 ALLISON CLAIRE 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1]