Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00698/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00698-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELVIN DUKES,

Plaintiff,

v.

TODD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00698-LJO-SKO PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF THIS

ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PAY

THE FILING FEE

RESPONSE DUE WITHIN 20 DAYS

Plaintiff Melvin Dukes (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 22, 2010, the Court issued

an order directing Plaintiff to submit an in forma pauperis application or pay the filing fee for this

action. (Doc. #3.) The order was mailed to Plaintiff and was later returned to the Court as

undeliverable because Plaintiff refused delivery of the mail containing the order. Plaintiff has not

paid the filing fee for this action or submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s

failure to pay the filing fee.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

1

Case 1:10-cv-00698-LJO-SKO Document 5 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 19, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:10-cv-00698-LJO-SKO Document 5 Filed 07/20/10 Page 2 of 2