(PC) Spearman v. Public Defenders Office

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 REGINALD EDWARD SPEARMAN, No. 2:21-cv-1290 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 18 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On June 26, 2023, plaintiff was ordered to file a completed in forma pauperis affidavit for 21 a non-prisoner, and he was given thirty days to do so. ECF No. 9. More than thirty days have 22 passed, and plaintiff has not filed the form, nor has he responded to the court’s order in any way. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a 24 District Judge to this case. 25 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice. 26 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 27 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 28 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 1 | with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 2 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 3 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 4 | (9th Cir. 1991). 5 || DATED: August 10, 2023 . 6 Ctlhter— Lane UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28