Patel

1 2 3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 LARRY D. PADILLA, 1:19-cv-00837-NONE-GSA-PC

12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,

RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE

13 vs. BE DISMISSED, WITHOUT

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO OBEY

14 DR. PATEL, et al., COURT ORDER (ECF No. 10.) 15 Defendants.

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN

16 FOURTEEN DAYS

17

18

19

20 21 On August 21, 2020, the Court issued an order dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint for 22 violation of Rule 18, with leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days. (ECF No. 10.) 23 The thirty-day time period has now expired and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or 24 otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 25 In determining whether to dismiss this action for failure to comply with the directives set 26 forth in its order, “the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public’s interest in 27 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3)…