From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Peterson v. San Joaquin Cnty. Sheriff's Office

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 11, 2018
No. 2:18-cv-00923 MCE CKD (PS) (E.D. Cal. May. 11, 2018)

Opinion

No. 2:18-cv-00923 MCE CKD (PS)

05-11-2018

MARK PETERSON, Plaintiff, v. SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Defendant.


ORDER & FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On April 20, 2018, plaintiff was granted fourteen days to either submit a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee for this action. Plaintiff was advised that failure to comply would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The fourteen days has passed, and plaintiff has not complied with the court's order.

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

In light of those recommendations, IT IS ALSO HEREBY ORDERED that all filings in this action are STAYED pending resolution of the findings and recommendations. With the exception of a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis, objections to the findings and recommendations, and any non-frivolous motions for emergency relief, the court will not entertain or respond to any motions and other filings until the findings and recommendations are resolved.

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 (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff 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 reply to the objections shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED. Dated: May 11, 2018

/s/_________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2 peterson0923.ifp-incompl_fr


Summaries of

Peterson v. San Joaquin Cnty. Sheriff's Office

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 11, 2018
No. 2:18-cv-00923 MCE CKD (PS) (E.D. Cal. May. 11, 2018)
Case details for

Peterson v. San Joaquin Cnty. Sheriff's Office

Case Details

Full title:MARK PETERSON, Plaintiff, v. SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE…

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

Date published: May 11, 2018

Citations

No. 2:18-cv-00923 MCE CKD (PS) (E.D. Cal. May. 11, 2018)