(PC)Willard v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESSE WILLARD, Case No. 1:19-cv-1073-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE; AND 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 14 CALIFORNIA DEP’T OF COURT ORDER CORRECTIONS & 15 REHABILITATION, et al., FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 16 Defendants. 17 The Court recently Plaintiff to file a completed in forma pauperis affidavit and a certified 18 copy of his prison trust account statement within forty-five days and cautioned him that failure to 19 do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The forty-five-day period 20 has now expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s order and has not filed the required 21 documents. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to assign a district judge to 22 this case, and the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 23 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 24 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after 25 being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with 26 the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 27 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed 28 1 and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure 2 to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 3 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: January 13, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28