-DAD (PC) Williams v. Walker, et al, No. 2:2011cv00805 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 06/17/11 ORDERING the clerk of the court shall randomly assign a U.S. District Judge to this action. U.S. District Judge Frank C. Damrell randomly assigned to this action. Also, RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge Frank C. Damrell. Objections due within 14 days.(Plummer, M)

Download PDF
-DAD (PC) Williams v. Walker, et al Doc. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 PATRICK WILLIAMS, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. CIV S-11-0805 DAD P vs. J. WALKER, et al., 14 ORDER AND Defendants. 15 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On May 9, 2011, plaintiff was 17 ordered to file a new in forma pauperis application and a certified copy of his trust account 18 statement within thirty days. In addition, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and he was granted 19 leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days. The thirty day period has now expired, 20 and plaintiff has not filed his in forma pauperis application or his amended complaint, and has 21 not otherwise responded to the court’s order. 22 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign this case to a District Judge. 24 Also, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 25 prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 26 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 2 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 3 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 4 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 5 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 6 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 7 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 8 DATED: June 17, 2011. 9 10 11 12 DAD:4 will0805.fifp.fta 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.