Martinez

(PC) Holmes v. Martinez

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 22, 20232:22-cv-01271California273 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TRAVELL C. HOLMES, No. 2:22-cv-01271-CKD P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND A. MARTINEZ, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. 16 By order filed January 4, 2023, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days leave to file an amended complaint was granted. The thirty day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign this matter to a district court judge. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(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, plaintiff may file written…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.