From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bradford v. Withrow

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 6, 2023
2:23-cv-0223 DAD KJN P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 6, 2023)

Opinion

2:23-cv-0223 DAD KJN P

09-06-2023

RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, Plaintiff, v. PATRICK WITHROW, et al., Defendants.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

On July 24, 2023, plaintiff was ordered to pay, within thirty days, the appropriate filing fee, and was cautioned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. That time period has expired, and plaintiff has not paid the court's filing fee, or otherwise responded to the court's order.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).


Summaries of

Bradford v. Withrow

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 6, 2023
2:23-cv-0223 DAD KJN P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 6, 2023)
Case details for

Bradford v. Withrow

Case Details

Full title:RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, Plaintiff, v. PATRICK WITHROW, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Sep 6, 2023

Citations

2:23-cv-0223 DAD KJN P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 6, 2023)