Artemenko v. Fang

Filing 8

ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 12/30/2011 ORDERING that a district judge be assigned to this case; and RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Assigned and Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SCOTT ARTEMENKO,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

No. 2:11-cv-2689 JFM (PC)

vs.
KO FANG,

ORDER AND
Defendant.

14

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
/

15
16

By an order filed November 16, 2011, plaintiff was ordered to file an in forma

17

pauperis affidavit or pay the appropriate filing fees within thirty days and was cautioned that

18

failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The thirty day

19

period has now expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order and has not filed an

20

in forma pauperis affidavit or paid the appropriate filing fee.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a district judge be assigned to this

21
22

case; and
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without

23
24
25
26

prejudice.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen
1

1

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

2

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

3

Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served

4

within fourteen days after service of the objections. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

5

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.

6

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

7

DATED: December 30, 2011.

8
9
10
11

/014;arte2689.fifp

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2