(PC) Ento v. State of California et al, No. 2:2019cv00235 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/3/2019 ORDERING Clerk of Court to assign a district judge to this case and RECOMMENDING this action be dismissed without prejudice. Assigned and referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTIAN DAVID ENTO, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:19-cv-0235 KJN P Plaintiff, ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants. 16 17 By an order filed February 13, 2019, plaintiff was ordered to either pay the required filing 18 fee or submit a completed in forma pauperis affidavit and a certified copy of his inmate trust 19 account statement and was cautioned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that 20 this action be dismissed. The thirty-day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not responded 21 to the court’s order and has not paid the court’s filing fee or filed the required documents. 22 23 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case; and 24 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 25 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 26 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 27 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 28 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 1 1 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 2 objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 3 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 4 appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 Dated: April 3, 2019 6 7 /ento0235.fifp 8 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.
