From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Overton v. Warden, CMF Vacaville

United States District Court, E.D. California
Sep 13, 2011
No. 2:11-cv-1646 LKK JFM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Sep. 13, 2011)

Opinion

No. 2:11-cv-1646 LKK JFM (PC).

September 13, 2011


FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS


By order filed July 29, 2011, plaintiff was granted thirty days in which to file a complaint. In addition, plaintiff was granted thirty days in which to either file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or to pay the $350.00 filing fee for this action. The thirty day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or an in forma pauperis application, nor has he paid the filing fee or otherwise responded to the court's 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)(1). 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." Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. 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).


Summaries of

Overton v. Warden, CMF Vacaville

United States District Court, E.D. California
Sep 13, 2011
No. 2:11-cv-1646 LKK JFM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Sep. 13, 2011)
Case details for

Overton v. Warden, CMF Vacaville

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL L. OVERTON, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN, CMF VACAVILLE, Defendant

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

Date published: Sep 13, 2011

Citations

No. 2:11-cv-1646 LKK JFM (PC) (E.D. Cal. Sep. 13, 2011)