Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01503/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01503-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marcus D. Horton
Plaintiff
Siskiyou County Jail
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

MARCUS D. HORTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SISKIYOU COUNTY JAIL,

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-1503 DAD P

ORDER AND FINDINGS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

By an order filed July 27, 2015, plaintiff was directed to, within thirty days of service of 

the order, (i) file a complaint and (ii) either file an in forma pauperis affidavit or pay the 

appropriate filing fees. Plaintiff was also cautioned that failure to comply with the order would 

result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The thirty day period has now expired, 

and plaintiff has neither responded to the court’s order, nor filed a complaint, nor filed an in 

forma pauperis affidavit, nor paid the appropriate filing fees. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall appoint a 

district judge in this action.

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 fourteen days 

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

Case 2:15-cv-01503-TLN-DAD Document 5 Filed 09/09/15 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 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: September 8, 2015

DAD:10

hort1503.fifp

Case 2:15-cv-01503-TLN-DAD Document 5 Filed 09/09/15 Page 2 of 2