(PC) Ellis v. County of El Dorado

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PETER JON ELLIS, Case No. 2:22-cv-00823-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS COUNTY OF EL DORADO, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 On February 23, 2023, I screened plaintiff’s amended complaint and notified him that his excessive force claim against defendant Litzius was cognizable, but that his other claims were not. ECF No. 20. I granted him thirty days to advise the court whether he wished to proceed only with his excessive force claim or to delay service and file an amended complaint. I also warned him that failure to comply with the order would result in dismissal of this action. Id. at 4.

22 Plaintiff did not respond. Accordingly, on May 15, 2023, I ordered him to show cause within twenty-one days why this action should not be dismissed. ECF No. 21. I again warned him that failure to comply with the order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

25 Id. at 2.

26 The deadline has passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded.

28 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a | United States District Judge to this case.

2 Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 3 1. This action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court | orders for the reasons set forth in the February 23, 2023 order.

5 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case.

6 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, any party 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.” Any response to the | objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to || appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez | v. Vist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

16 IT IS SO ORDERED.

17 ( 1 Sy — Dated: _ July 12, 2023 Q——— 18 JEREMY D. PETERSON 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE