(PC) Ruiz v. Woodfill ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, No. 2:20-cv-0205 KJM AC P 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. 14 D. WOODFILL, et al. 15 Defendants. 16 17 By order filed March 11, 2020, plaintiff was ordered to pay the filing fee and was 18 cautioned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 19 ECF No. 8. The thirty-day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s 20 order or paid the filing fee. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 22 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 25 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 26 with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 27 //// 28 //// wOAIe 2 OU VOM UING INIT ENN RAMU PIR Nee AY ee 1 | and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 2 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 3 | (Oth Cir. 1991). 4 | DATED: April 17, 2020 ~ 5 Hthren— Lhar—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 6 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