Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00497/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00497-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard Acosta
Plaintiff
Pam Ahlin
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

RICHARD ACOSTA,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAM AHLIN,

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-0497 DAD P

ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

By an order filed March 17, 2015, plaintiff was ordered to submit within thirty days a 

properly completed application for proceeding in forma pauperis. Plaintiff was cautioned that 

failure to comply or seek an extension of time would result in a recommendation that this action 

be dismissed. The thirty day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not has not filed an in 

forma pauperis application, has not paid the appropriate filing fee and has not sought an extension 

of time or otherwise responded to the court’s order. Therefore the court will recommend that this 

action be dismissed without prejudice. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign this 

action to a district judge.

IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Fed.R.Civ.P. 

41(b). 

////

Case 2:15-cv-00497-WBS-DAD Document 5 Filed 05/27/15 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

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 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response 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: May 26, 2015

hm

acos0497.fifp

Case 2:15-cv-00497-WBS-DAD Document 5 Filed 05/27/15 Page 2 of 2