ORDER CLOSING THE CASE BASED UPON PLAINTIFF'S VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.
On June 20, 2017, the Court screened the Complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend to allow Plaintiff to cure the deficiencies noted; alternatively, Plaintiff could file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Doc. 15.) In response, Plaintiff filed a notice that he is "not ready to go through with" this action until he goes "home and find (sic) me a lawyer (sic) will represent me. Bye thank you and God bless." (Doc. 16.) It appeared that Plaintiff intends to voluntarily dismiss this action. However, because the filing was a bit vague, the Court ordered the plaintiff to file a statement indicating whether he wished to voluntarily dismiss the action. (Doc. 17.) That order warned that if Plaintiff failed to file a statement, the Court would presume that he did intend to dismiss the matter without prejudice under Rule 41. (Doc. 17.) The plaintiff did not respond.
The Ninth Circuit has explained:
Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997).
No defendant has appeared in this case. Because Plaintiff has exercised his right to voluntarily dismiss the complaint under Rule 41(a)(1), this case has terminated. See Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692. Therefore, the Clerk is directed to close this case in light of Plaintiff's Rule 41(a)(1)(i) requested dismissal without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.