Opinion
2:24-cv-01161-DJC-JDP (PC)
08-17-2024
JAMES CARL KELLY, Plaintiff, v. BANDARU, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT THE CLERK OF COURT BE DIRECTED TO CLOSE THIS MATTER
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS
JEREMY D. PETERSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff is a “Three-Striker” within the meaning of Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Kelly v. Sao, No. 1:19-cv-00681-LJO-BAM (E.D. Cal. May 19, 2019) (recognizing plaintiff as a “three-striker” within in the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). Accordingly, on April 30, 2024, I recommended that plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff was allowed fourteen days to file objections. Id. at 3. I also recommended that plaintiff be directed to tender the filing fee within thirty days of any order adopting these recommendations. Id.
Plaintiff did not file objections or tender the filing fee. On June 27, 2024, the district judge adopted the findings and recommendations and ordered plaintiff to tender the filing fee within thirty days. ECF No. 8. The district judge referred the matter back to me for further pretrial proceedings. Id.
The deadline imposed by the court to tender the filing fee has expired, and plaintiff has neither tendered the filing fee nor otherwise responded to the court's orders.
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the Clerk of Court be directed to close this matter.
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 days of service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
IT IS SO ORDERED.