Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00553/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00553-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven M. Henson
Plaintiff
Unknown
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN M. HENSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-0553 DAD P

vs.

UNKNOWN, ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed April 17, 2009, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days

leave to file an amended complaint was granted. The thirty day period has now expired, and

plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to

randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action;

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without

prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

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

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

Case 2:09-cv-00553-WBS-DAD Document 15 Filed 01/29/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

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. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: January 28, 2010.

DAD:lg

hens0553.fta

Case 2:09-cv-00553-WBS-DAD Document 15 Filed 01/29/10 Page 2 of 2