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)

Download PDF
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

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?