IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 3, 2013
MIGUEL DIAZ, PLAINTIFF,
SWARTHOUT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 28, 2013, the court screened plaintiff's amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court found service appropriate as to some defendants, but not all, and granted plaintiff thirty days to either return documents necessary to effect service of process on defendants against whom plaintiff had stated a cognizable claim, or to file an amended complaint. Dckt. No. 18. The order warned plaintiff that failure to comply would result in this action being dismissed. The time for acting has passed and plaintiff has not submitted the materials necessary for service, 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 randomly assign a United States District Judge to this case.
Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E. D. Cal. Local Rule 110, 183(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 fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).