Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00433/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00433-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Carrie Lee
Plaintiff

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

On March 26, 2014, Plaintiff Carrie Lee, proceeding in pro se, filed her social security 

complaint together with a motion and application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Docs. 1, 

2. On March 28, 2014, the Court denied the motion to proceed IFP because Plaintiff failed to 

complete, sign, and submit the second page of the motion, and the Court was unable to conclude 

that she satisfied the IFP requirements. Doc. 3. In the order denying the motion, Plaintiff was 

given thirty days to submit a completed application or pay the filing fee. She was advised that 

failure to do so would result in dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute. As of July 1, 

2015, Plaintiff has not filed a completed IFP application or paid the filing fee. 

Hence, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the action is DISMISSED without prejudice, 

and the case closed. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Court 

Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-

304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of 

California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written 

CARRIE LEE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. 1:14-CV-433- LJO-SMS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 

Case 1:14-cv-00433-LJO-SMS Document 6 Filed 07/08/15 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 with the Court, serving a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The Court will then review 

the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 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). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 8, 2015 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:14-cv-00433-LJO-SMS Document 6 Filed 07/08/15 Page 2 of 2