(PC) Casity v. Amador County

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RICHARD D. CASITY, No. 2:24-cv-2449 DC CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS AMADOR COUNTY, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 By order filed April 14, 2025, plaintiff was granted thirty days to file an amended complaint as to his claims against defendant Amador County, the only remaining defendant in this action. (ECF No. 6.) Thirty days passed from April 14, 2025 and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, or otherwise responded to the Court’s order.

21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

23 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).

3 | Dated: May 20, 2025 > Cin □□□ CHI SOO KIM 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE | casz449.fa/2 1]