Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01820/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01820-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Candice Keeton
Plaintiff
Royals
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 

CANDICE KEETON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ROYALS, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-1820-EFB P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. On August 12, 2016, the court ordered plaintiff to, within 30 days, submit either 

the filing fee or the application to proceed in forma pauperis required by § 1915(a). That order 

warned plaintiff that failure to comply with the order would result in a recommendation of 

dismissal. The time for acting has passed and plaintiff has not submitted the filing fee or an 

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk randomly assign this case to a United 

States District Judge. 

Further, 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 2:16-cv-01820-MCE-EFB Document 10 Filed 09/15/16 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 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. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: September 15, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-01820-MCE-EFB Document 10 Filed 09/15/16 Page 2 of 2