(PC) Lucero v. Richards ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TIMOTHY PAUL LUCERO, No. 2:24-cv-0521 AC P 12 Plaintiff, ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATIONS 14 RAMISHA SLOCUM RICHARDS, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On March 4, 2024, plaintiff 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 plaintiff 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 plaintiff 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 ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is 25 directed to assign a district judge to this case; and 26 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 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. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 3 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff advised that failure to file objections within the specified 4 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 5 | (th Cir. 1991). 6 || DATED: May 22, 2024 ~ 7 Lhar—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