Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02169/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02169-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRANVILLE H. MARSHALL, JR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-2169 LEW EFB PS

vs.

BANNER LASSEN MEDICAL FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

CENTER, MICHELLE JOY,

Defendants. 

 /

On October 29, 2007, the Clerk of Court notified plaintiff that the check he remitted for

payment of the filing fee was returned by his bank as “non sufficient funds.” On November 20,

2007, the court issued a second notice, again informing plaintiff of the returned check and

advising him that he had ten days in which to present a check to the Clerk’s Office for the full

amount of the filing fee and an additional $45.00 “returned check processing fee.” The notice

warned that failure to respond to the notice could result in further action by the court. The ten

day period has now expired and plaintiff has failed to tender the filing fee, to file an application

to proceed in forma pauperis, or otherwise respond to the notice. Accordingly, the court

recommends that this action be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 11-110.

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

Case 2:07-cv-02169-LEW-EFB Document 6 Filed 12/27/07 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

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

the court. The 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. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455

(9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: December 27, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-02169-LEW-EFB Document 6 Filed 12/27/07 Page 2 of 2