From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rushdan v. Perbula

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 2, 2006
No. CIV S-06-0729 GEB GGH P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2006)

Opinion

No. CIV S-06-0729 GEB GGH P.

August 2, 2006


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


By an order filed May 17, 2006, plaintiff was ordered to file an in forma pauperis affidavit or pay the remaining portion of the filing fee 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 an in forma pauperis affidavit or paid the remaining portion of the filing fee. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

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, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten days after 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. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).


Summaries of

Rushdan v. Perbula

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 2, 2006
No. CIV S-06-0729 GEB GGH P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2006)
Case details for

Rushdan v. Perbula

Case Details

Full title:SALADIN RUSHDAN aka ROBERT WOODS, Plaintiff, v. TOM PERBULA, et al.…

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

Date published: Aug 2, 2006

Citations

No. CIV S-06-0729 GEB GGH P (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2006)