1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 RANDY TEJADA, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-1112 JLT EPG (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING THE 13 v. ) ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE ) 14 S. CALDERON, ) (Doc. 40) ) 15 Defendant. ) ) 16 )

17 After the defense filed a motion for summary judgment, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an 18 opposition or a statement of non-opposition to it. (Doc. 39.) Plaintiff did not respond. Therefore, the 19 magistrate judge found Plaintiff had failed to prosecute this action and failed to comply with the 20 Court’s order. (Doc. 40 at 1-2.) The magistrate judge recommended the action be dismissed, without 21 prejudice, and the pending motion be denied as moot. (Id. at 4.) 22 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations, and it notified him that any objections 23 were due within 14 days of the date of service. (Doc. 40 at 4.) The Court also informed him that the 24 “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id, 25 citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014), Baxter v. Sullivan,

, 26 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) To date, Plaintiff has not filed objections and the time to do so has passed. 27 Plaintiff has not taken any action to further prosecute this case. 28 1 According to

(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this Court conducted a de novo 2 || review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes the Findings and 3 || Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 4 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated July 12, 2023 (Doc. 40) are ADOPTED. 5 2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 6 3. Defendant’s pending motion for summary judgment is denied as MOOT. 7 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 8 9 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: _ August 20, 2023 ( LAW ph L. wan 11 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28