(PC) Brown v. Solano County, No. 2:2009cv00439 - Document 20 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/12/09 ORDERING the clerk of the court is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez randomly assigned to this action. Also, RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 20 days. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
(PC) Brown v. Solano County Doc. 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MIKEL BROWN, 11 12 13 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-0439 DAD P vs. SOLANO COUNTY JAIL, et al., ORDER AND 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendants. 15 16 / By order filed July 20, 2009, plaintiff’s second amended complaint was dismissed 17 and plaintiff was granted thirty days to file a third amended complaint. On September 1, 2009, 18 plaintiff was granted an additional sixty days to file his third amended complaint. The time 19 period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed a third amended complaint or otherwise 20 responded to the court’s order. 21 22 23 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action; IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 25 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 26 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 20 days 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 2 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 3 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 4 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 5 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 DATED: November 12, 2009. 7 8 9 10 DAD:lg brow0439.fta 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.