Williams v. Paramo

Full title: FRANK J. WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. D. PARAMO, Respondent.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: May 20, 2013

2:13-Cv-0417 Kjn P (E.D. Cal. May. 20, 2013)

Opinion

FRANK J. WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. D. PARAMO, Respondent. No. 2:13-Cv-0417 Kjn P United States District Court, E.D. California. May 20, 2013

          ORDER AND FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

          KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

         By order filed April 4, 2013, petitioner was granted thirty days in which to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus, and application to proceed in forma pauperis or the court's filing fee. Thirty days have now passed, and petitioner has not filed a petition, an application or paid the filing fee, or otherwise responded to the court's order.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case; and

         IT IS 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 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).