(PC) Langston v. California Department of Corrections et al, No. 2:2015cv01437 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/31/15 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WALTER LANGSTON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 2:15-cv-1437 GEB KJN P v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 By an order filed July 17, 2015, plaintiff was ordered to file a completed in-forma 19 pauperis affidavit and a certified copy of his prison trust account statement within thirty days and 20 was cautioned that the failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be 21 dismissed. The thirty day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s 22 order1 and has not filed an in forma pauperis affidavit and trust account statement. Accordingly, 23 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 26 27 28 1 On August 5, 2015, plaintiff filed a request for copies of complaints filed in this and two other actions filed by plaintiff in the Eastern District, but plaintiff did not address the July 17, 2015 order. (ECF No. 7.) 1 1 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.” Any response to the 4 objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 5 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 6 appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 7 Dated: August 31, 2015 8 9 /lang1437.fifp 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 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.
