(PC) Silva v. Gonzales et al, No. 1:2013cv02064 - Document 10 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this Action be DISMISSED, Without Prejudice, for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply With the Court's Orders re 4 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 3/24/2014. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within fifteen (15) days. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LOUIS ADOLFO SILVA, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. GONZALES, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:13-cv-02064-LJO-BAM PC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONSTO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS (ECF Nos. 5, 6, 7) FIFTEEN-DAY DEADLINE Plaintiff Louis Adolfo Silva (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on 20 November 27, 2013, in the Central District of California. The matter was transferred to this district on 21 December 19, 2013. 22 On December 19, 2013, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either consent to or decline Magistrate 23 Judge jurisdiction within thirty days. (ECF No. 5.) Thereafter, on December 23, 2013, the Court 24 ordered Plaintiff to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis on the correct form or pay the 25 filing fee within forty-five days. (ECF No. 6.) On February 3, 2014, the Court issued a second order 26 requiring Plaintiff to either consent to or decline Magistrate Judge jurisdiction within thirty days. 27 (ECF No. 7.) The relevant time periods for Plaintiff to respond to the Court’s orders have expired, and 28 1 1 Plaintiff has not filed the correct application to proceed in forma pauperis, paid the filing fee or 2 consented to or declined Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. 3 A civil action may not proceed absent the submission of either the filing fee or an application 4 to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. As Plaintiff has submitted neither and has not 5 responded to any of the Court’s orders, dismissal of this action is appropriate. In re 6 Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006); Local 7 Rule 110. 8 9 10 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders. These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 11 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fifteen (15) days 12 after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with 13 the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 14 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 15 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara March 24, 2014 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.