From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Paris v. Purcell

United States District Court, E.D. California
Apr 3, 2007
No. CIV S-07-0194 WBS DAD P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2007)

Opinion

No. CIV S-07-0194 WBS DAD P.

April 3, 2007


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


By an order filed January 31, 2007, plaintiff was ordered to file a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the appropriate filing fee within thirty days. In addition, plaintiff's complaint was dismissed and thirty days leave to file an amended complaint was granted. On February 22, 2007, plaintiff was granted an additional thirty days to comply with the court's order. The time period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis, has not paid the appropriate filing fee, has not filed an amended complaint, and has not otherwise responded to the court's order.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110 (E.D. Cal. 1997); 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 twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. Such a 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).


Summaries of

Paris v. Purcell

United States District Court, E.D. California
Apr 3, 2007
No. CIV S-07-0194 WBS DAD P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2007)
Case details for

Paris v. Purcell

Case Details

Full title:ERNEST PARIS, Plaintiff, v. R.N. PURCELL, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Apr 3, 2007

Citations

No. CIV S-07-0194 WBS DAD P (E.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2007)