(PC) Casteneda v. Quiring

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 26, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-02196
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LORENZO CASTENEDA, No. 2:21-cv-2196 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 J. QUIRING, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 By an order filed December 10, 2021, plaintiff was ordered to file an in forma pauperis 18 affidavit using this court’s form, and was cautioned that failure to do so would result in a 19 recommendation that this action be dismissed. The thirty-day period has now expired, and 20 plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order and has not filed the required document. 21 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is 22 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 | failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 2 | Court’s order. Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 || Dated: January 25, 2022 ' Foci) Aharon 5 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 /cast2196.fifp 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28