Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01499/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01499-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ryan Lanzarotta-Leek
Plaintiff
State of California
Defendant

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

RYAN LANZAROTTA-LEEK,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-1499 KJN P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. By an order filed July 20, 2015, 

plaintiff was ordered to file an in forma pauperis affidavit or pay the appropriate filing fees within 

thirty days and 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 responded to the 

court’s order and has not filed an in forma pauperis affidavit or paid the appropriate filing fee. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is 

directed to assign a district judge to this case; and

IT IS 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 fourteen days 

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

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

Case 2:15-cv-01499-MCE-KJN Document 4 Filed 08/31/15 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

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are 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: August 28, 2015

/lanz1499.fifp

Case 2:15-cv-01499-MCE-KJN Document 4 Filed 08/31/15 Page 2 of 2