From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hairston v. Phillips

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 13, 2015
No. 2:15-cv-0581 KJM CKD P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 13, 2015)

Opinion

No. 2:15-cv-0581 KJM CKD P

07-13-2015

ROBEY KURT HAIRSTON, Plaintiff, v. C. L. PHILLIPS, Defendant.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

By an order filed June 2, 2015, plaintiff was ordered to file a completed in forma pauperis application within thirty days and was cautioned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The thirty day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court's order and has not filed a completed application.

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 fourteen 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). Dated: July 13, 2015

/s/_________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2 / hair0581.fifp


Summaries of

Hairston v. Phillips

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 13, 2015
No. 2:15-cv-0581 KJM CKD P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 13, 2015)
Case details for

Hairston v. Phillips

Case Details

Full title:ROBEY KURT HAIRSTON, Plaintiff, v. C. L. PHILLIPS, Defendant.

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

Date published: Jul 13, 2015

Citations

No. 2:15-cv-0581 KJM CKD P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 13, 2015)