(PC)Rasheed v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al, No. 2:2009cv03560 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/28/2010 ORDERING that that the Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. It is recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Objections due within 21 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Duong, D)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC)Rasheed v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TAHEE ABD’RASHEED 11 12 13 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-3560 DAD P vs. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., ORDER AND 14 Defendants. 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 On March 17, 2010, plaintiff was ordered to file an in forma pauperis application 17 within thirty days. He was cautioned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that 18 this action be dismissed. The thirty day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed an in 19 forma pauperis application or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 20 21 22 23 Accordingly, IT HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. Also, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 25 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty- 26 one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 2 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 3 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 4 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 DATED: April 28, 2010. 6 7 8 9 10 DAD:sj rash3560.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.
