(PC) Smith v. Rowling, No. 2:2010cv00679 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 06/14/10 ORDERING the Clerk of the court assign a district judge to this matter. U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez randomly assigned to this case. Also, RECOMMENDING that this case be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 20 days. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
(PC) Smith v. Rowling Doc. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ELIJAH M. SMITH, JR., Plaintiff, 11 12 vs. 13 No. 2:10-cv-0679 JFM (PC) J.K. ROWLING, 14 Defendant. / 15 16 ORDER AND FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS On April 28, 2010, plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, was granted a 17 third opportunity to file a fully completed application to proceed in forma pauperis on or before 18 May 28, 2010. That period has now passed and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order 19 and has not filed an application or paid the filing fee. 20 21 22 23 24 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court assign a district judge to this matter; and IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this case be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States 25 District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 26 twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings 2 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 3 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 4 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 DATED: June 14, 2010. 6 7 8 9 /014.smit0679.fifp 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.