(PC) Valenzuela v. Thorntona

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARIO P. VALENZUELA, No. 2:23-cv-02494-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THORNTONA, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 By an order filed January 22, 2024, plaintiff was ordered to file a signed complaint and was cautioned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. ECF No. 8. The thirty-day period has expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order and has not filed a signed complaint.

21 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case; and 23 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice and all pending motions (ECF Nos. 2, 7) terminated.

25 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 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: March 25, 2024 or Mi, / Lin- Lal lige LZHEYKo 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1]