Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01591/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01591-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City Of Fresno
Defendant
Allen Richardson
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLEN RICHARDSON, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

THE CITY OF FRESNO, ) 

 )

Defendant. )

)

 )

1:05-cv-1591-OWW-SMS 

ORDER RE: FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS ACTION

FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PAY

THE $250.00 FILING FEE OR FILE AN

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS (DOCS. 5, 6)

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with an action for damages

and other relief concerning alleged civil rights violations. 

Plaintiff filed the instant action on December 12, 2005.

However, Plaintiff neither paid the $250.00 filing fee nor filed

an application to proceed in forma pauperis. On December 22,

2005, the Court directed Plaintiff within thirty days of service

either to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or to

pay the $250.00 filing fee. The Clerk’s proof of service shows

that the order and a blank in forma pauperis application were

mailed to Plaintiff at the address listed in the docket on

December 22, 2005. Thereafter, on January 31, 2006, when

Plaintiff had failed to file timely either an application or the

Case 1:05-cv-01591-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 03/16/06 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

fee, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and a recommendation

that the action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to pay the

filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis,

comply with an order of the Court, or otherwise prosecute the

case. The findings and recommendation were served on all parties

and contained notice that any objections to the findings and

recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the

date of service of the order. Over thirty days have passed, but

no party has filed any objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United School Dist., 708 F.2d

452, 454 (9 Cir. 1983), this Court has conducted a de novo th

review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

the Court finds that the report and recommendation are supported

by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendation filed January 31, 2006,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; and

2. The action IS DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to

prosecute; and

3. The Clerk of Court IS DIRECTED to close this action

because this order terminates the action in its entirety.IT IS SO

ORDERED.

Emm0d6Dated: March 15, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01591-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 03/16/06 Page 2 of 2