Ortiz v. California Deparment of Corrections et al

Filing 27

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 2/26/2015 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge William B. Shubb; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSUE ORTIZ,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:13-cv-0617 WBS KJN P
Plaintiff,

v.

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

By order filed August 26, 2014, plaintiff’s amended complaint was dismissed and thirty

19

days leave to file a second amended complaint was granted. On January 6, 2015, plaintiff was

20

granted an additional thirty days in which to file a second amended complaint. Thirty days from

21

that date have now expired, and plaintiff has not filed a second amended complaint or otherwise

22

responded to the court’s order.

23
24

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

25

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

26

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

27

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

28

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings
1

1

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified

2

time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

3

(9th Cir. 1991).

4

Dated: February 26, 2015

5
6
/orti0617.fta

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2