Warden

(PC) Price v. Warden

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 11, 20242:23-cv-01229California274 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SCOTT RICHARD PRICE, No. 2:23-cv-01229 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 WARDEN, 15 Defendant. 16 17 By order filed January 8, 2024, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty days leave 18 to file an amended complaint was granted. Thirty days from that date have now expired, and 19 plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 20 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to assign this action to 21 a United States District Judge. 22 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See 23 Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 26 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 27 //// 28 //// 1 | with…

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.