(PS) Brittany v. Sacramento Police Department et al, No. 2:2018cv02627 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/14/18 RECOMMENDING that the action be Dismissed without prejudice and that the clerk be Directed to close this case. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Coll, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHALLA ALFARO BRITTANY, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 2:18-cv-2627-KJM-KJN PS Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al. Defendants. 17 18 On November 7, 2018, the court denied plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, 19 and directed plaintiff to pay the applicable filing fee within 28 days. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff was 20 expressly cautioned that failure to timely pay the filing fee, or timely request an extension of time 21 to do so, may result in dismissal of the action. (Id.) 22 Although the applicable deadline has now passed, plaintiff neither paid the filing fee nor 23 requested an extension of time to do so based on any articulated cause. Accordingly, IT IS 24 HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 25 1. The action be dismissed without prejudice. 26 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. 27 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 28 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 1 1 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.” Any reply to the objections 4 shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the 5 objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 6 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th 7 Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 8 Dated: December 14, 2018 9 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.
