1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARK BAKER, No. 2:25-cv-01063-DC-CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 ZIPLINE INTERNATIONAL INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff filed a pro se civil complaint and this matter was referred to the undersigned by 18 Local Rule 302(c)(21) pursuant to

(b). The undersigned issued findings and 19 recommendations on June 26, 2025 (ECF No. 30), recommending that plaintiff’s motion to 20 remand (ECF No. 14) be denied, defendants Yolo Land & Cattle Co. and Zipline International 21 Co.’s motion to dismiss be granted (ECF No. 21), and defendant Yolo County’s motion to 22 dismiss be granted (ECF No. 22). The undersigned allowed plaintiff to file an amended complaint 23 within thirty (30) days of the issuance of an order adopting the findings and recommendations. 24 (ECF No. 30 at 16.) Plaintiff was warned that failure to file an amended complaint in accordance 25 with the order would result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed. (Id.) On August 11, 26 2025, the District Judge adopted the findings and recommendations and allowed plaintiff to file 27 an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 31.) Plaintiff was again warned that 28 failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with the order could result in a 1 | recommendation that the action be dismissed. (Id. at 2.) The time granted for plaintiff to file an 2 || amended complaint has expired. Plaintiff has neither filed an amended complaint nor sought an 3 || extension of time to do so. 4 In recommending this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, the court has 5 || considered “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 6 || manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 7 || disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.” Ferdik v. 8 | Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). Because this case cannot 9 || move forward without plaintiff's participation, the court finds the factors weigh in favor of 10 || dismissal. 1] In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED as follows: 12 1. This action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); and 13 2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to close this case. 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 15 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within fourteen days 16 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 17 || with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections 18 || to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 19 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 20 | Martinez v. Yist,

(9th Cir. 1991). 21 | Dated: October 2, 2025 / ae I / dle ae

23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 6 5, bake. 1063.25

27 28