(HC) Carlock v. Covello, No. 2:2020cv02210 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 2/22/2021 RECOMMENDING this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. 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 KEVIN DASHAWYE CARLOCK, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:20-cv-2210 TLN KJN P v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PATRICK COVELLO, 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. On November 9, 2020, 18 petitioner was ordered to file an in forma pauperis affidavit or pay the appropriate filing fee, and 19 that his failure to comply would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 20 Petitioner failed to respond, and the undersigned recommended that the action be dismissed. 21 Petitioner filed objections, and the findings and recommendations were vacated. By an order 22 filed January 11, 2021, petitioner was granted an additional thirty days in which to file an in 23 forma pauperis affidavit or pay the appropriate filing fee. Such thirty-day period has expired, and 24 petitioner has not responded to the court’s order, has not filed an in forma pauperis affidavit, and 25 has not paid the appropriate filing fee. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 26 27 prejudice. 28 //// 1 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 3 after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 4 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 5 Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the 6 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 7 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 8 Dated: February 22, 2021 9 10 11 12 /carl2210.fpf.hab2 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.
