From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dyess v. Warden

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 16, 2023
2:23-cv-2003 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2023)

Opinion

2:23-cv-2003 KJN P

11-16-2023

SIRMICHAEL DYESS, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Respondent.


ORDER and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

By an order filed October 2, 2023, petitioner was ordered to file an in forma pauperis affidavit or to pay the appropriate filing fee, within thirty days, or his application would be dismissed. The thirty-day period has expired, and petitioner has not responded to the court's order, has not filed an in forma pauperis affidavit, and has not paid the appropriate filing fee.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall assign a district judge to this action.

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, petitioner may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is 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

Dyess v. Warden

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 16, 2023
2:23-cv-2003 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2023)
Case details for

Dyess v. Warden

Case Details

Full title:SIRMICHAEL DYESS, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 16, 2023

Citations

2:23-cv-2003 KJN P (E.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2023)