Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00883/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00883-2/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ERIC C. GULBRONSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

KENDALL, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-0883 AC P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 By order filed October 11, 2016, plaintiff was directed to notify the court of his current 

address and to file a completed in forma pauperis affidavit or pay the required filing fees in order 

to proceed with this action, and was cautioned that failure to do so would result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed. The thirty day period has now expired, and 

plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order and has not filed the required documents. 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is 

directed to assign a district judge to this case; and 

 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for 

failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. 

 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 fourteen days 

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

Case 2:16-cv-00883-MCE-AC Document 5 Filed 12/02/16 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

with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections 

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations. Plaintiff is advised 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). 

DATED: December 1, 2016 

Case 2:16-cv-00883-MCE-AC Document 5 Filed 12/02/16 Page 2 of 2