(PS) Nelson v. Hillcrest Mobile Home Park, et al, No. 2:2009cv02862 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/13/09 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute this action. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Objections to F&R due within 20 days. (Engbretson, K.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Nelson v. Hillcrest Mobile Home Park, et al Doc. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DIANNE NELSON, 11 12 13 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-2862 GEB DAD PS vs. HILLCREST MOBILE HOME PARK, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 Defendants. 15 16 / By an order filed October 14, 2009, plaintiff was provided with an in forma 17 pauperis application form and was ordered to return the fully completed form to the court within 18 twenty days. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to file a timely new application to proceed in 19 forma pauperis will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 20 The twenty-day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed a properly completed in forma 21 pauperis application or responded in any way to the court’s order. 22 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 23 prejudice for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute this action. See Fed. R. 24 Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 11-110. 25 26 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file 2 written objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections 3 to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 4 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 5 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 DATED: November 13, 2009. 7 8 9 10 DAD:kw Ddad1\orders.pro se\nelson2862.fifp 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.
