(HC) Lopez Galindo v. Warden

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PEDRO LOPEZ GALINDO, Case No. 2:23-cv-00572-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WARDEN, 15 Respondent.

17 On June 26, 2023, respondent filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 9. On August 8, 2023, after petitioner failed to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition within twenty-one days, I ordered him to show cause within twenty-one days why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute. ECF No. 10. I notified him that if he wished to continue with this action, he must, within twenty-one days, file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss. Id. I also warned him that failure to comply with that order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Id. 24 The deadline has passed, and petitioner has neither filed a response to the motion to dismiss nor otherwise responded to the August 8, 2023 order. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this case.

28 Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 1 1. This action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to | comply with court orders, for the reasons set forth in this order.

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

4 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 of | service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the | court and serve a copy on all parties. Such document should be captioned “Objections to | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response shall be served and filed | within fourteen days of 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.

11 | Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 12 1991).

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

15 ( 1 Ow — Dated: _ October 3, 2023 q-—— 16 JEREMY D. PETERSON 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE