From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taylor v. Superior Court of California

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Apr 21, 2011
2:11-cv-0494 DAD (PC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2011)

Opinion


ROBERT ANTHONY TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants. No. 2:11-cv-0494 DAD (PC) United States District Court, E.D. California. April 21, 2011

          ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

          DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.

         By an order filed March 10, 2011, plaintiff was ordered to file a complete 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 complete in forma pauperis application.

         Although it appears from the file that plaintiff's copy of the court's March 10, 2011 order was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.

         In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to assign this action to a United States District Judge; and

         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 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

Taylor v. Superior Court of California

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Apr 21, 2011
2:11-cv-0494 DAD (PC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2011)
Case details for

Taylor v. Superior Court of California

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT ANTHONY TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, et al.…

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

Date published: Apr 21, 2011

Citations

2:11-cv-0494 DAD (PC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2011)