(HC) Sholl v. Unknown

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: June 26, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00958
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN SHOLL, II., No. 2:20-cv-0958 CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 UNKNOWN, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Respondent. 16 17 On May 14, 2020, the court granted petitioner 30 days to: (1) file a petition for writ of 18 habeas corpus; and (2) submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee. 19 Petitioner was warned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be 20 dismissed. Petitioner has not filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed an application to 21 proceed in forma pauperis, or paid the filing fee. 22 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court assign a 23 district court judge to this case. 24 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this case be closed. 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 after 27 being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections 28 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings wOASe 2 OW UVM YO PINOY INES MMU SO ee OY ee

1 | and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 2 | time waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 3 | Cir. 1991). 4 | Dated: June 26, 2020 f° Lf i, / CAN fu fl. ay CAROLYN K. DELANEY 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 | 1 shol0958.frs 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28