1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIKEL LEE PLETT, No. 2:24-cv-02870-DAD-CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 J. TUCKER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 By order filed May 23, 2025 (ECF No. 10), plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and the 19 court granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days. The time granted for 20 this purpose has expired and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded 21 to the court’s order. 22 In recommending this action be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute, the court 23 considers the following factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) 24 the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 25 policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 26 sanctions. See Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff has not stated a claim 27 and has failed to comply with the court’s order to file an amended complaint even though plaintiff 28 was specifically cautioned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action 1 || be dismissed. (See ECF No. 10.) Accordingly, this action should be dismissed for plaintiff's 2 || failure to prosecute. 3 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed 4 | without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 6 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within 14 days after 7 || being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 8 | the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 9 || Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 10 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 11 | Martinez v. Yist,

(9th Cir. 1991). 12 | Dated: July 9, 2025 fed) / dha ANG fe □□□ -AGeo 8 CAROLYNK.DELANEY 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 6 8, plet2870.fia.fr 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28