(PC) Womack v. Baughman ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RODNEY JEROME WOMACK, No. 2:17-cv-2708 TLN KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 DAVID BAUGHMAN, Warden, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 By an order filed April 6, 2020, plaintiff was ordered to pay, within twenty-one days of 18 the electronic filing of such order, the appropriate filing fee.1 That time period has now expired, 19 and plaintiff has not paid the court’s filing fee, or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 20 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be 21 dismissed without prejudice. 22 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 23 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 24 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 25 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 26 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 27 1 On August 25, 2020, plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute. 28 (ECF No. 39.) wOAOe □□ □□□ VME PUOT ERINUING MVVUPEIOCTEIL ot POO Ivete Oy Ov 1 | objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 2 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 3 | appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 | Dated: September 1, 2020 Fens Arn 6 KENDALL J. NE voma2708 fpf 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