(PC) Casity v. Son ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD D. CASITY, No. 2:22-cv-1983 TLN AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 MONIVIRIN SON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On January 24, 2023, plaintiff was ordered to file a completed in forma pauperis affidavit, 18 and he was given thirty days to do so. ECF No. 11. This was the third time plaintiff had been 19 ordered to file a properly completed in forma pauperis application. See ECF Nos. 4, 8, 11. With 20 each order, he was sent a new in forma pauperis application. See id. 21 The thirty-day period has now expired, and plaintiff still has not filed a properly 22 completed in forma pauperis application, nor, in the alternative, has he paid the filing fee. Given 23 the number of opportunities plaintiff has been given to file a proper in forma pauperis application, 24 it appears that he is unable or unwilling to do so. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without 26 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 fourteen days 1 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 2 || with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections 3 || to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 4 || objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 5 || Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 || DATED: March 7, 2023 ~ 7 Htttenr— Lhor—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28