(PC) Mills v. Fox ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH WAYNE MILLS, No. 2:19-cv-1957 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 FOX, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 On September 30, 2019, plaintiff was ordered to file a completed in forma pauperis 18 application or pay the filing fee within thirty days and was cautioned that failure to do so would 19 result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The thirty day period has now expired, 20 and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court assign a district 22 court judge to this case; and 23 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See 24 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 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 | “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 7, 2019 bh rdf ht / (o— 6 CAROLYN K DELANEY 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 | 1 mill1957.fifp 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28