Lanzarotta-Leek v. State of California

Filing 4

ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/28/2015 DIRECTING the Clerk to assign a district judge to this case. IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Assigned and referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RYAN LANZAROTTA-LEEK,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:15-cv-1499 KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. By an order filed July 20, 2015,

18

plaintiff was ordered to file an in forma pauperis affidavit or pay the appropriate filing fees within

19

thirty days and was cautioned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this

20

action be dismissed. The thirty day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the

21

court’s order and has not filed an in forma pauperis affidavit or paid the appropriate filing fee.

22
23

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is
directed to assign a district judge to this case; and

24

IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

Dated: August 28, 2015

6
7
/lanz1499.fifp

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2