1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEVON K. WEBB, No. 2:25-cv-02156-DC-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE, et al. 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis. By order filed August 4, 18 2025, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and 28 days’ leave to file an amended complaint was 19 granted. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff was informed that failure to file either an amended complaint or a 20 notice of voluntary dismissal by the required deadline could result in the imposition of sanctions, 21 including dismissal. (Id. at 5-7.) The 28-day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed 22 an amended complaint nor otherwise responded to the court’s order. 23 In recommending this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, the court has 24 considered “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 25 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 26 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” Ferdik v. 27 Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). Because plaintiff has not 28 stated a claim for relief and this case cannot move forward without plaintiff’s participation, the 1 | factors weigh in favor of dismissal. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 3 || prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 5 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within fourteen days 6 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 7 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 8 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 9 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 10 Yist,

(9th Cir. 1991). 11 | Dated: September 19, 2025 ; 20 } it | Ld □ ae,

13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 2/webb2156.f&rs_fta 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28