Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00085/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00085-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Neuschmid
Respondent
Jay Jerrome Ridley
Petitioner

Document Text:

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 

JAY JERROME RIDLEY, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

ROBERT NEUSCHMID, WARDEN, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:20-cv-0085 AC P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking 

relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. The matter was referred to this court pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On February 10, 2020, the undersigned ordered petitioner to submit either an application 

to proceed in forma pauperis or to pay the appropriate filing fee. ECF No. 4. To date, petitioner 

has neither complied with the court’s order nor responded in any way. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a 

District Court Judge to this action. 

 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED for failure to 

comply with a court order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); L.R. 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 fourteen days 

Case 2:20-cv-00085-KJM-AC Document 6 Filed 03/23/20 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 

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

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner 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: March 23, 2020 

Case 2:20-cv-00085-KJM-AC Document 6 Filed 03/23/20 Page 2 of 2