Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01590/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01590-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLEN RICHARDSON, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

J. ISQUIERDO, et al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:05-cv-1590-REC-SMS 

ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS ACTION

BECAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO

PAY THE $250.00 FILING FEE OR

FILE AN APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS, FOLLOW AN ORDER

OF THE COURT, AND PROSECUTE THE

ACTION (DOCS. 3, 4)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO CLOSE

THE ACTION

Plaintiff filed the instant action on December 12, 2005.

However, Plaintiff neither paid the $250.00 filing fee nor filed

an application to proceed in forma pauperis. On March 9, 2006,

the Court directed Plaintiff within thirty days of service either

to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or to pay the

$250.00 filing fee. The Clerk’s proof of service shows that the

order and a blank in forma pauperis application were mailed to

Plaintiff at the address listed in the docket on March 9, 2006.

Thereafter, on May 1, 2006, when Plaintiff had failed to file

timely an application or pay the fee, the Magistrate Judge filed

findings and a recommendation that the action be dismissed for

Case 1:05-cv-01590-AWI -SMS Document 5 Filed 06/08/06 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

2

Plaintiff’s failure to pay the filing fee or file an application

to proceed in forma pauperis, comply with an order of the Court,

or otherwise prosecute the case. The findings and recommendation

were served on all parties and contained notice that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed

within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. Over

thirty days have passed, but no party has filed any objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United School Dist., 708 F.2d

452, 454 (9 Cir. 1983), this Court has conducted a de novo th

review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

the Court finds that the report and recommendation are supported

by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendation filed May 1, 2006, are

ADOPTED IN FULL; and

2. The action IS DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to

prosecute; and

3. The Clerk of Court IS DIRECTED to close this action

because this order terminates the action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01590-AWI -SMS Document 5 Filed 06/08/06 Page 2 of 2