Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02459/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02459-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 245
Nature of Suit: Real Property Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Tort Action

---

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

 By the April 19, 2007 order, thirteen of plaintiff’s filings were disregarded. Plaintiff 1

was cautioned that sanctions may be imposed for the continued filing of documents not relevant

to this action. Plaintiff has filed three additional documents irrelevant to this case.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIKA CHRISTINA ALFARO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2459 MCE DAD PS

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendant.

 /

By an order filed April 19, 2007, plaintiff’s incomplete application to proceed in

forma pauperis was denied. Plaintiff was ordered to file a properly completed application within

fifteen days and was cautioned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this

action be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 11-110 (E.D. Cal. 2005). The fifteenday period has now expired and plaintiff has not filed any document responsive to the court’s

order and has not filed a properly completed in forma pauperis application.1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice.

Case 2:06-cv-02459-MCE -DAD Document 21 Filed 05/15/07 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

2

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections

with the court. The document should be titled “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See

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

DATED: May 14, 2007.

DAD:kw

Ddad1\orders.prose\alfaro2459.fifp

Case 2:06-cv-02459-MCE -DAD Document 21 Filed 05/15/07 Page 2 of 2