(PC)Davis v. C.D.C.R. et al, No. 2:2016cv02906 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 2/22/17 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Dillon, M)

Download PDF
(PC)Davis v. C.D.C.R. et al Doc. 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CONNOR A. DAVIS, 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 14 No. 2:16-cv-2906 MCE KJN P v. CDCR, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 By an order filed January 4, 2017, plaintiff was ordered to pay the filing fee or file a 17 18 completed in forma pauperis affidavit and a certified copy of his prison trust account statement, 19 and was cautioned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be 20 dismissed. The thirty day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s 21 order1 and has not filed the required documents or paid the filing fee. In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be 22 23 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 Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, a notice of his alleged pending release in March of 2017, and a supplement to his complaint, but none of these documents addressed the January 4, 2017 order. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 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: February 22, 2017 8 9 /davi2906.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.