(PC) Carroll v. Brown et al, No. 2:2012cv02584 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/7/2012 ORDERING the Clerk to assign this action to a US District Judge; and RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Assigned and Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Carroll v. Brown 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 TREMAYNE D. CARROLL, 11 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, No. 2:12-cv-2584 DAD P vs. EDMUND G. BROWN, et al., ORDER AND Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / By an order filed October 23, 2012, plaintiff was ordered to file a properly 17 completed application to proceed in forma pauperis and was cautioned that failure to do so, or to 18 seek an extension of time to do so, would result in a recommendation that this action be 19 dismissed. The thirty day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not responded in any way to 20 the to the court’s order and has not filed a properly completed in forma pauperis application. 21 22 23 24 25 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to assign this action to a United States District Judge; and IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 2 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 3 Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served 4 within fourteen days after service of the objections. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 5 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 6 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 7 DATED: December 7, 2012. 8 9 10 11 12 DAD:12 carr12cv2584.fifp 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.
