1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KIRK DOUGLAS WILLIAMS, No. 2:24-cv-0673 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SHERIFF DEPARTMENT SACRAMENTO, 15 Defendant. 16 17 By order filed November 12, 2024, the complaint was screened and found to not state a 18 claim for relief. ECF No. 6. Plaintiff was given thirty days to file an amended complaint and 19 cautioned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Id. 20 at 4. After plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint, he was given an additional twenty-one 21 days to do so and was warned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this 22 action be dismissed without further warning. ECF No. 7. Twenty-one days have now passed, 23 and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly 25 assign a United States District Judge to this action 26 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a 27 claim for the reasons set forth in the November 12, 2024 Screening Order (ECF No. 6). See L.R. 28 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. ] These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within fourteen days 3 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 4 || with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections 5 || to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 6 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 7 || Martinez v. Yist,

(9th Cir. 1991). 8 | DATED: February 21, 2025 ~ Lhar—e_ 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28