(PC)Ramos v. County of Sacramento et al, No. 2:2020cv00971 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/29/2020 ORDERING Clerk to assign a district judge to this case and RECOMMENDING this action be dismissed without prejudice. Assigned and referred to Judge William B. Shubb. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC)Ramos v. County of Sacramento et al Doc. 8 Case 2:20-cv-00971-WBS-KJN Document 8 Filed 07/29/20 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTONIO RAMOS, Jr., 12 13 14 15 No. 2: 20-cv-0971 KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Defendants. 16 17 By an order filed June 19, 2020, plaintiff was granted thirty days to file a properly 18 completed in forma pauperis application and a certified copy of his trust account. The thirty days 19 period has now expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order and has not filed the 20 required documents. 21 22 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 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 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 27 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 28 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-00971-WBS-KJN Document 8 Filed 07/29/20 Page 2 of 2 1 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 2 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 Dated: July 29, 2020 4 5 6 7 Ramos971.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.
