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)

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