(PC) Hamm v. Mulligan ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN MARK HAMM, No. 2:20-cv-0906 DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SEAN MULLIGAN, 15 Defendant. 16 17 By an order filed August 26, 2020, plaintiff was ordered to file a completed in forma 18 pauperis affidavit and a certified copy of his prison trust account statement, and he was cautioned 19 that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The thirty- 20 day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order and has not filed 21 the required documents. 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, plaintiff may file written objections 28 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.” Plaintiff is advised that 2 | failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 3 || Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 | Dated: October 27, 2020 5 6 4 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 | rez: 10 DB/nbox/Routine/hamm0906.fifp 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28