(PC) Dunsmore v. State of CA

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DARRYL DUNSMORE, No. 2:21-cv-1711 TLN AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 By order filed December 15, 2022, the complaint was screened and found to not state a claim for relief. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff was given thirty days to file an amended complaint and cautioned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Id. at 7. After plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint, he was given an additional twenty-one days to amend the complaint and warned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without further warning. ECF No. 11. Twenty-one days have now passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim for the reasons set forth in the December 15, 2022 Screening Order (ECF No. 8). See L.R. 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

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).

7 || DATED: April 11, 2023 ~ 8 Lhar—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1]