(HC) Nuno Urenda v. Warden ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANCISCO NUNO URENDA, No. 2:23-cv-1410 DJC AC P 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. 14 WARDEN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 On July 18, 2023, petitioner was ordered to file a completed in forma pauperis application 18 or pay the filing fee and was cautioned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that 19 this action be dismissed. ECF No. 3. After petitioner failed to file a completed application or pay 20 the fee, he was given an additional twenty-one days to comply and warned that failure to comply 21 would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without further warning. ECF No. 22 6. The twenty-one-day period has now expired, and petitioner has not filed an application to 23 proceed in forma pauperis, paid the filing fee, or otherwise responded to the court’s orders. 24 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be 25 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, petitioner may file written 1 | objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 2 || Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections 3 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 4} Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 || DATED: October 17, 2023 ~ 6 HAAvn— Mare ALLISON CLAIRE 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28