(PC) Perryman v. California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID PERRYMAN, No. 2:20-cv-1943 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND 15 REHABILITATION, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 By an order filed October 1, 2020, plaintiff was ordered to file a properly completed in 19 forma pauperis affidavit or submit the required court filing fees, and was cautioned that failure to 20 do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The thirty-day period has 21 now expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order and has not filed the required 22 documents. 23 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is 24 directed to assign a district judge to this case; and 25 IT IS HEREBY 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 fourteen days 28 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 1 | with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 2 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 3 | failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 4 | Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 | Dated: November 17, 2020 ° Fens Arn 7 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 /perr1943.fifp 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28