From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lee v. Figueroa

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 17, 2015
No. 2:14-cv-2724 AC P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 17, 2015)

Opinion

No. 2:14-cv-2724 AC P

06-17-2015

FARAJI LAMONT LEE, Petitioner, v. FRED FIGUEROA, Respondent.


ORDER AND FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

By order filed May 4, 2015, 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. ECF No. 5. The thirty day period has now 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.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a United States 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)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections with the court. Such a 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). DATED: June 17, 2015

/s/_________

ALLISON CLAIRE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Lee v. Figueroa

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 17, 2015
No. 2:14-cv-2724 AC P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 17, 2015)
Case details for

Lee v. Figueroa

Case Details

Full title:FARAJI LAMONT LEE, Petitioner, v. FRED FIGUEROA, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jun 17, 2015

Citations

No. 2:14-cv-2724 AC P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 17, 2015)