Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00744/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00744-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hursel Floyd Mitchell
Plaintiff
Sacramento County Behavioral Health
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 

HURSEL FLOYD MITCHELL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SACRAMENTO COUNTY 

BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:15-cv-00744 KJM AC (PS) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 By an order filed April 29, 2015, plaintiff was ordered to file a second in forma pauperis 

affidavit AND/OR pay the appropriate filing fees, within twenty (20) days, and was cautioned 

that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without 

prejudice. ECF No. 3. The twenty day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not responded to 

the court’s order, has not filed another in forma pauperis affidavit, and has not paid the 

appropriate filing fee. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 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 twenty one (21) 

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

Case 2:15-cv-00744-KJM-AC Document 4 Filed 06/23/15 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 and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

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

shall be served and filed 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: June 22, 2015 

Case 2:15-cv-00744-KJM-AC Document 4 Filed 06/23/15 Page 2 of 2