From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Murillo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 12, 2013
No. 2: 12-cv-3066 MCE KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 12, 2013)

Opinion

No. 2: 12-cv-3066 MCE KJN P

06-12-2013

LONNIE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. J. MURILLO, et al., Defendants.


FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 2, 2013, the court ordered plaintiff to pay the filing fee within twenty-eight days of the date of the order. Twenty-eight days passed and plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee or otherwise respond to the May 2, 2013 order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

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 twenty-one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff 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).

_____________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Williams v. Murillo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 12, 2013
No. 2: 12-cv-3066 MCE KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 12, 2013)
Case details for

Williams v. Murillo

Case Details

Full title:LONNIE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. J. MURILLO, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Jun 12, 2013

Citations

No. 2: 12-cv-3066 MCE KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 12, 2013)