(PC) Mendez v. CDCR

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RAMON EDDIE MENDEZ, No. 2:22-cv-1339 KJM KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS CDCR, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 By order filed January 26, 2023, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days leave to file an amended complaint was granted. On February 8, 2023, the order was re-served on plaintiff’s new address.1 Thirty days from that date have passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

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

23 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 1 Plaintiff’s copy of the order was not returned. On March 17, 2023, plaintiff filed another change of address. But no copies of the January 26, 2023 order have been returned as undeliverable.

1 | 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).

5 || Dated: May 23, 2023 Foci) Aharon 7 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE |] imend1339.fta 1]