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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?