(PC) Brown v. Cate et al, No. 2:2010cv01345 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/19/10: ORDERING that the Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. Recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Objections to F&R due within twenty-one days. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
(PC) Brown v. Cate et al Doc. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RONNIE BROWN, 11 12 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-10-1345 DAD P vs. 13 MATTHEW CATE, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / On June 8, 2010, plaintiff was ordered to pay the $350.00 filing fee in full or 17 submit a properly completed application to proceed in forma pauperis within thirty days. He was 18 cautioned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 19 The thirty day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed a properly completed in forma 20 pauperis application or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 21 22 23 24 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). 25 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 26 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 2 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 3 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 4 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 5 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 DATED: July 19, 2010. 7 8 9 10 11 DAD:sj brow1345.fifp 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.