(PC) Lucero v. Richards

Filing 8

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 07/26/2024 ADOPTING 7 Findings and Recommendations in full; and DISMISSING this action, without prejudice. CASE CLOSED. (Lopez, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TIMOTHY PAUL LUCERO,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:24-cv-00521-DAD-AC (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.
RAMISHA SLOCUM RICHARDS,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
THIS ACTION
(Doc. No. 7)

16
17

Plaintiff Timothy Paul Lucero is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se in this civil rights

18

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

19

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On March 4, 2024, the court ordered plaintiff to either file a motion to proceed in forma

21

pauperis or pay the required filing fee in order to proceed with this action. (Doc. No. 3.) The

22

court provided plaintiff with thirty days to comply with that order. (Id. at 1.) After that deadline

23

passed and plaintiff had failed to comply with that order, on April 17, 2024, the court sua sponte

24

provided plaintiff with an additional twenty-one days in which to comply with the court’s order.

25

(Doc. No. 6.) To date, plaintiff has not paid the required filing fee to proceed with this action nor

26

filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, and the deadline in which to do so has passed.

27

Accordingly, on May 22, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

28

recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, due to
1

1

plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s orders and failure to pay the filing fee. (Doc. No. 7.)

2

The findings and recommendations were served upon plaintiff and contained notice that any

3

objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 1–2.) To date,

4

plaintiff has not filed any objections and the time in which to do so has passed.

5

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a

6

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the

7

pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

8

Accordingly:

9

1.

10

The findings and recommendations issued on May 22, 2024 (Doc. No. 7) are
adopted in full;

11

2.

12

This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to pay the
required filing fee and failure to comply with a court order; and

13

3.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated:

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

July 26, 2024
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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