Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01462/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01462-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mulugeta Atsbaha
Plaintiff
William Barr
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MULUGETA ATSBAHA,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM BARR, ATTORNEY 

GENERAL,

Defendant.

No. 2:19-cv-1462 KJM DB PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was, therefore, referred to the 

undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). By order 

signed November 14, 2019, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed, and plaintiff was granted leave 

to file an amended complaint that cured the defects noted in that order. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff 

was granted twenty-eight days from the date of that order to file an amended complaint and was 

specifically cautioned that the failure to respond to the court’s order in a timely manner would 

result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The twenty-eight-day period has 

expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order in any manner.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 

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

////

Case 2:19-cv-01462-KJM-DB Document 4 Filed 02/06/20 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

27

28

2

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 

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

objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal 

the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: February 6, 2020

DLB:6

DB\orders\orders.pro se\atsbaha1462.fta.f&rs

Case 2:19-cv-01462-KJM-DB Document 4 Filed 02/06/20 Page 2 of 2