(PC) Foster v. Sacramento Parole Dept. North Highlands ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARTIN LEE FOSTER, No. 2:22-cv-1923 DAD CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SACRAMENTO PAROLE DEPT. NORTH HIGHLANDS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On November 7, 2022, plaintiff was ordered to file a request to proceed in forma pauperis 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 RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 22 prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 23 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 24 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 25 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 26 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 27 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 28 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 1 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 2 || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 | Dated: December 21, 2022 Cad Kt | La Ly (g— 4 CAROLYNK. DELANEY 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8] 1 9 fost1923.fifp 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28