(HC) Ridley v. Neuschmid ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAY JERROME RIDLEY, No. 2:20-cv-0085 AC P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 ROBERT NEUSCHMID, WARDEN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking 18 relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. The matter was referred to this court pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 10, 2020, the undersigned ordered petitioner to submit either an application 21 to proceed in forma pauperis or to pay the appropriate filing fee. ECF No. 4. To date, petitioner 22 has neither complied with the court’s order nor responded in any way. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a 24 District Court Judge to this action. 25 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED for failure to 26 comply with a court order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); L.R. 110. 27 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 28 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 1 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 2 | objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 3 | Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections 4 | within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 5 || Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 | DATED: March 23, 2020 ~ 7 Attten— Lhar—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28