Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00144/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00144-1/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

ANTHONY G. AUBRY, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

E. BLANCO, et al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:06-cv-00144-OWW-SMS 

ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS ACTION

FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PAY

THE $250.00 FILING FEE OR FILE A

COMPLETED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

APPLICATION, FOLLOW A COURT

ORDER, AND PROSECUTE THE CASE

(DOCS. 5, 6)

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO

CLOSE THE ACTION

Plaintiff filed the instant action on February 9, 2006.

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

an application to proceed in forma pauperis. On March 17, 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 17, 2006.

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

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

Case 1:06-cv-00144-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 06/20/06 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

findings and a recommendation that the action be dismissed for

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 the same date 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.

Emm0d6Dated: June 16, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00144-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 06/20/06 Page 2 of 2