From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Blocker v. Premo

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Mar 14, 2011
Civ. No. 10-1411-CL (D. Or. Mar. 14, 2011)

Opinion

Civ. No. 10-1411-CL.

March 14, 2011


ORDER


Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Report and Recommendation, and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Although no objections have been filed, this court reviews the legal principles de novo. See Lorin Corp. v Goto Co., Ltd., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 1983).

In November 2010, this court notified plaintiff that he must pay a filing fee or apply to proceed in forma pauperis. This court also advised plaintiff that the complaint failed to state a claim and could be dismissed without service on defendant. Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee, applied to proceed in forma pauperis, or requested an extension of time. Accordingly, I ADOPT the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Clarke.

CONCLUSION

Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#4) is adopted. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 14 day of March, 2011.


Summaries of

Blocker v. Premo

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Mar 14, 2011
Civ. No. 10-1411-CL (D. Or. Mar. 14, 2011)
Case details for

Blocker v. Premo

Case Details

Full title:TYRONE BLOCKER, Plaintiff, v. J. PREMO, SUPERINTENDENT, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Mar 14, 2011

Citations

Civ. No. 10-1411-CL (D. Or. Mar. 14, 2011)