(PC) Gordon v. Rodrick ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JARROD GORDON, No. 2:20-cv-0988 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 RODRICK, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On June 17, 2021, plaintiff was ordered to file a completed in forma pauperis affidavit or, 18 in the alternative, to pay the required filing fees. See ECF No. 4. At that time, plaintiff was given 19 thirty days within which to comply with the court’s order, and he was cautioned that failure to do 20 so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The thirty-day period has now 21 expired, and plaintiff has not filed the required documents, nor has he responded to the court’s 22 order in any way. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a 24 District Court Judge to this action. 25 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice. 26 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 27 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days 28 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 1 | with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 2 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 3 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 4 | (9th Cir. 1991). 5 || DATED: July 28, 2021 6 Hthren— Lhor—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28