(PC) Howell v. Herrera ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAREEM J. HOWELL, No. 2:22-cv-1006 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 G. HERRERA, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants. 16 17 On July 25, 2022, plaintiff was ordered to file a completed in forma pauperis application 18 or pay the filing fee within thirty days and was cautioned that failure to do so would result in a 19 recommendation that this action be dismissed. The thirty day period has now expired, and 20 plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court assign a district 22 court judge to this case; and 23 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See 24 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 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. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 1 | and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 2 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 3 || (9th Cir. 1991). 4 || Dated: September 6, 2022 Card Kt | / py la 4 5 CAROLYN K DELANEY? 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9} 1 10 howe 1006. fifp 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28