Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02855/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02855-2/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

1

 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the February 20, 2007, order

was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court

apprised of her current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 83-182(f), service of

documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIKA CHRISTINA ALFARO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2855 MCE EFB PS

vs.

SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPT.,

Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was denied on February 20, 2007. 

That order directed plaintiff to pay the filing fee of $350.00 within thirty days The thirty day

period has now expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order and has not paid the

requisite filing fee.1

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be

dismissed without prejudice.

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

Case 2:06-cv-02855-MCE -EFB Document 9 Filed 04/20/07 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

the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez

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

DATED: April 19, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02855-MCE -EFB Document 9 Filed 04/20/07 Page 2 of 2