(PC) Dearwester v. United States ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANK LEE DEARWESTER, No. 2:19-cv-0124 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 On July 9, 2020, plaintiff was granted until August 15, 2020 to file a response to 18 defendants’ motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status. Plaintiff was warned that 19 failure to file a timely response would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed 20 without prejudice. Plaintiff has not filed a response. 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 Local Rule 110; 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, plaintiff may file written objections 28 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings MADE SLD VY EATING IVINS INES MVOC 2 PI OF ee POY ee 1 | and Recommendations.” Plaintiff advised that failure to file objections within the specified 2 | time waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 3 | (9th Cir. 1991). 4 | Dated: August 25, 2020 f° Lf i, / CAN fu fl. ay CAROLYN K. DELANEY 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 10 dear0124.frs 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28