Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00829/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00829-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAMIRO GARZA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0829 GEB DAD P

vs.

UNKNOWN,

Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By an order filed May 21, 2007, plaintiff was directed to submit the appropriate

filing fee or file a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis within thirty days. In

addition, plaintiff was ordered to file either a complaint or habeas petition on the form provided

by the court within thirty days. Plaintiff 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 paid the appropriate filing fee, has not filed a completed application to proceed

in forma pauperis, has not filed a complaint or habeas petition on the form provided by the court,

and has not otherwise responded to the court’s order. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without

prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110 (E.D. Cal. 1997); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

/////

Case 2:07-cv-00829-GEB-DAD Document 6 Filed 07/06/07 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

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 twenty

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

objections with the court. 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: July 6, 2007.

DAD:lg

garz0829.fifp.fta

Case 2:07-cv-00829-GEB-DAD Document 6 Filed 07/06/07 Page 2 of 2