Ali v. Hudson Insurance Company, et al.

Filing 8

ORDER DISMISSING CASE for Failure to Pay Filing Fee, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/24/17. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HUSSEIN ALI, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 No. 1:16-cv-01743-DAD-EPG Plaintiff, v. ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE HUDSON INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN SAFETY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; AEGIS SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY; and PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, (Doc. Nos. 2, 4 and 7) Defendants. 19 Plaintiff Hussein Ali, proceeding pro se, filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis 20 (“IFP”) on November 17, 2016. (Doc. No. 2.) On December 12, 2016, Magistrate Judge Erica P. 21 Grosjean entered findings and recommendations, recommending plaintiff’s applications to 22 proceed in forma pauperis be denied and that plaintiff be required to pay the $400 filing fee in 23 full to proceed with this action. (Doc. No. 4.) On January 5, 2017, the court entered an order 24 adopting those findings and recommendations in full. (Doc. No. 6.) The order denied plaintiff’s 25 motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and gave plaintiff thirty days to pay the required $400 filing 26 fee. (Id. at 2.) That order also specifically warned plaintiff that “[f]ailure on plaintiff’s part to 27 comply with this order by paying the required filing fee will result in the dismissal of this action.” 28 (Id.) The thirty day period has expired, and plaintiff has failed to pay the required $400 filing fee. 1 1 Moreover, on March 3, 2017, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and 2 recommendations, recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice due to 3 “[p]laintiff’s failure to pay the required filing fee and comply with the [c]ourt’s order of January 4 5, 2017.” (Doc. No. 7 at 2.) Those findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff that 5 same day and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days. 6 (Id.) Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the findings and recommendations as of the date of 7 this order. 8 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 9 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the March 10 11 3, 2017 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, 12 1. The findings and recommendations, filed March 3, 2017 (Doc. No. 7), are adopted in full; 13 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to pay the required 14 15 16 17 filing fee and failure to comply with the court’s orders; and 3. The Clerk is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 24, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 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?