-JFM (PC) Madveno v. Staton, No. 2:2011cv00168 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 3/25/2011 ORDERING the clerk to assign this action a US District Judge; and RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed w/out prejudice. Assigned and Referred to Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr.; Objections due w/in 14 days. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
-JFM (PC) Madveno v. Staton Doc. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ORLANDO VICTOR MADVENO, 11 12 13 Plaintiff, No. 2:11-cv-0168 JFM (PC) vs. GARY R. STATON, 14 ORDER AND Defendant. 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 By an order filed February 1, 2011, plaintiff was ordered to either file an in forma 17 pauperis application or pay the appropriate filing fees within thirty days and was cautioned that 18 failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The thirty day 19 period has now expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order and has neither filed 20 an in forma pauperis application nor paid the appropriate filing fee. 21 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to assign this action to a United States District Judge; and 23 24 25 26 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 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 2 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 3 Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served 4 within fourteen days after service of the objections. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 5 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 6 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 7 DATED: March 25, 2011. 8 9 10 11 12 12 madv0168.fifp 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.