1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL C. WARNKEN, Case No. 2:24-cv-01813-DJC-CSK PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO

14 COUNTY OF SOLANO, et al., PROSECUTE 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Michael C. Warnken is appearing in this action without counsel.1 The 18 undersigned issued findings and recommendations on June 24, 2025, recommending 19 that Defendants County of Solano and John Vasquez’s motion to dismiss be granted 20 and Plaintiff be given leave to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 12.) The 21 undersigned also recommended denying Defendants’ motion to strike as moot and 22 dismissing the Doe Defendants. Id. On August 18, 2025, the District Judge adopted the 23 findings and recommendations in full, granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss and 24 granting Plaintiff twenty-one days to file an amended complaint, and denying 25 Defendants’ motion to strike as moot and dismissing the Doe Defendants. (ECF No. 18.) 26 Plaintiff was warned that failure to timely file an amended complaint will result in a 27 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c). 1 || recommendation that this action be dismissed. (ECF No. 12 at 17; ECF No. 18 at 2.) The 2 || time granted for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint has expired. Plaintiff has neither 3 | filed an amended complaint nor sought an 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 6 || need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 7 || policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 8 | alternatives.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation 9 | omitted). Because this case cannot move forward without Plaintiff's participation, the 10 | Court finds the factors weigh in favor of dismissal. 11 Based upon the findings above, it is RECOMMENDED that: 12 1. This action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); 13 and 14 2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to CLOSE this case. 15 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 16 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 17 | 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file 18 | written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. This document should 19 | be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any 20 | reply to the objections shall be served on all parties and filed with the Court within 14 21 | days after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time 22 | may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 23 | 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 24 25 | Dated: October 9, 2025 C i s 26 CHI SOO KIM 27 | 5, wan.te13.24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28