1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEAN MARC VAN DEN HEUVEL, Case No. 2:23-cv-00021-DAD-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. THAT PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BE

DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO

14 TRACY BARBOUR, PROSECUTE, COMPLY WITH COURT

ORDERS, AND STATE A CLAIM

15 Defendants. ECF No. 4 16

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN

17 DAYS 18 19 20 On December 5, 2023, I screened plaintiff’s complaint and notified him that it failed state 21 a claim. ECF No. 8. I granted plaintiff thirty days either to file an amended complaint or an 22 advisement indicating that he wished to stand by his complaint, subject to a recommendation that 23 it be dismissed. Id. I also warned plaintiff that failure to comply with that order would result in a 24 recommendation that this action be dismissed. Id. Plaintiff has failed to respond to that order. 25 The deadline has passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise 26 responded to the December 5, 2023 order. 27 28 1 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. This action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute, failure to comply 3 | with court orders, and failure to state a claim for the reasons set forth in the December 5, 2023 4 | order. 5 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case. 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 7 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 8 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 9 | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 10 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 11 | objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 12 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 13 || appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 14 | v. Vist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 | rr Is SO ORDERED. 16 / 17 || Dated: _ February 7, 2024 usr, Voto.

JEREMY D,. PETERSON

18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28