Acosta v. Ahlin

Filing 5

ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/26/15 ORDERING that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a district judge to this action; IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge William B. Shubb; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICHARD ACOSTA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:15-cv-0497 DAD P

v.

ORDER AND

PAM AHLIN,

15

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendant.

16
By an order filed March 17, 2015, plaintiff was ordered to submit within thirty days a

17
18

properly completed application for proceeding in forma pauperis. Plaintiff was cautioned that

19

failure to comply or seek an extension of time would result in a recommendation that this action

20

be dismissed. The thirty day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not has not filed an in

21

forma pauperis application, has not paid the appropriate filing fee and has not sought an extension

22

of time or otherwise responded to the court’s order. Therefore the court will recommend that this

23

action be dismissed without prejudice. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign this

24
25

action to a district judge.
IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Fed.R.Civ.P.

26
27

41(b).

28

////
1

1

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

2

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

3

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

4

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

5

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

6

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

7

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

8

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

9

Dated: May 26, 2015

10
11
12
13

hm
acos0497.fifp

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2