(PC) Randolph v. CSP Sacramento ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL RANDOLPH, No. 2:19-cv-01670 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CSP SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 By an order filed September 4, 2019, plaintiff was ordered to file a completed in forma 17 pauperis application or pay the filing fee within thirty days and was cautioned that failure to do so 18 would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The thirty day period has now 19 expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order. 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall assign a district 21 judge to this action. 22 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See 23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 26 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 27 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 28 1 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 2 | objections shall be served and filed 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. YlIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 || Dated: November 5, 2019 bh rdf ht / (o— 6 CAROLYN K DELANEY 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 12/rand1670.fifp.docx 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28