1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM ROBERT OLMER, No. 2:20-cv-0701 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS &

RECOMMENDATIONS

14 BUTTE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 By order filed April 9, 2020, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days leave to 19 file an amended complaint was granted. Plaintiff sought a sixth month extension of time to 20 amend. (ECF Nos. 11 (undated), 14 (dated April 11, 2020)). On April 16, 2020, the court did not 21 find good cause for such a lengthy extension of time, but rather granted plaintiff sixty days in 22 which to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 13.) Sixty days from that date have now passed, 23 and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, or otherwise responded to the April 16, 2020 24 order. 25 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is 26 directed to assign a district judge to this case; and 27 IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 28 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). wOAOe COU UNV EVE PRIN IN th PC vee yh Ove

1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within thirty days after 3 | being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 4 | the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 5 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 6 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 7 | Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 8 | Dated: July 2, 2020 Fesll Arn 10 KENDALL J. NE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11} jotmo7o1.tta 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28