(PC) Ray v. Hasem ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY D. RAY, No. 2:21-cv-0072 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 O. HASEM, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 18 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On September 3, 2021, plaintiff was ordered to file a completed non-prisoner in forma 21 pauperis application and to do so within thirty days. ECF No. 12. The thirty-day period has now 22 expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order and has not filed the required 23 document. 24 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is 25 directed to assign a district judge to this matter, and 26 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice. 27 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 28 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days 1 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 2 || with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 3 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff advised that failure to file objections within the specified 4 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 5 | (th Cir. 1991). 6 || DATED: October 22, 2021 A /, 7 ALLISON CLAIRE g UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28