(PC) Parrish v. Mule Creek State Prison

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOSHUA PARRISH, No. 2:22-cv-02192-CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND MULE CREEK STATE PRISON, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendant.

17 By order filed December 27, 2022, plaintiff was granted 30 days to file a complaint in order to properly commence this civil action. ECF No. 10. The thirty day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed a complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

20 Plaintiff was warned that his failure to respond to the court’s order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. ECF No. 10 at 2.

22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign this matter to a district court judge.

24 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that: 25 1. This action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 41(b).

27 2. All pending motions be terminated.

28 3. The Clerk of Court close this action. ] 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. 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 || (Oth Cir. 1991).

8 || Dated: February 8, 2023 / a8 } i | / p , {a ce CAROLYNK. DELANEY 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] 16 12/parr2 192. fta