(PC) Michel v. Gipson ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FABIAN HANCY MICHEL, No. 2:21-cv-2178 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CONNIE GIPSON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. By an order filed November 29, 2021, 18 plaintiff was ordered to file an in forma pauperis affidavit or pay the $402.00 filing fee, and was 19 cautioned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 20 The thirty-day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order and 21 has not filed the required document or paid the filing fee. 22 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is 23 directed to assign a district judge to this case; and 24 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 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, any party may file written 28 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 1 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 2 || objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 3 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 4 | appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 || Dated: January 12, 2022 Foci) Aharon 7 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 || fmich2178.fpf 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28