Silva v. Gonzales et al

Filing 10

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this Action be DISMISSED, Without Prejudice, for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply With the Court's Orders re 4 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 3/24/2014. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within fifteen (15) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LOUIS ADOLFO SILVA,

12
13
14

15

Plaintiff,
v.
GONZALES, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-02064-LJO-BAM PC
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONSTO
DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY
COURT ORDERS
(ECF Nos. 5, 6, 7)
FIFTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Louis Adolfo Silva (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on

20

November 27, 2013, in the Central District of California. The matter was transferred to this district on

21

December 19, 2013.

22

On December 19, 2013, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either consent to or decline Magistrate

23

Judge jurisdiction within thirty days. (ECF No. 5.) Thereafter, on December 23, 2013, the Court

24

ordered Plaintiff to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis on the correct form or pay the

25

filing fee within forty-five days. (ECF No. 6.) On February 3, 2014, the Court issued a second order

26

requiring Plaintiff to either consent to or decline Magistrate Judge jurisdiction within thirty days.

27

(ECF No. 7.) The relevant time periods for Plaintiff to respond to the Court’s orders have expired, and

28
1

1

Plaintiff has not filed the correct application to proceed in forma pauperis, paid the filing fee or

2

consented to or declined Magistrate Judge jurisdiction.

3

A civil action may not proceed absent the submission of either the filing fee or an application

4

to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. As Plaintiff has submitted neither and has not

5

responded to any of the Court’s orders, dismissal of this action is appropriate. In re

6

Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006); Local

7

Rule 110.

8
9
10

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without
prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders.
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

11

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fifteen (15) days

12

after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with

13

the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

14

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

15

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

March 24, 2014

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2