McDaughtery v. Arce

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 6 — 7 LESESTER D. MCDAUGHTERY, Case No. 25-cv-02474-JSC g Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 V. 10 CARLOS ARCE, 11 Defendant. 12 On April 23, 2025, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's civil rights complaint for failure to E 13 || present a cognizable claim for relief. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff was granted 28 days to file an 14 || amended complaint, and warned that if he did not do so the case would be dismissed. He has not 3 15 || filed an amended complaint, requested an extension of time, or shown cause why not. This case is 16 || accordingly DISMISSED with prejudice. See WMX Technologies v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 , 1136 i 17 || (9th Cir. 1997) (when complaint has been dismissed with leave to amend and plaintiff does not Z 18 || amend, further district court determination is necessary). 19 The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: July 24, 2025 — 22 — 23 Degli stot D □ JAQQUELINE SCOTT CORL 24 United States District Judge — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —