Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00723/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00723-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arturo Garcia
Petitioner
United States of America
Respondent

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 

ARTURO GARCIA, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-723-MCE-EFB P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On April 7, 2015, the court ordered petitioner to, within 30 days, 

pay the $5.00 filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) or request leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis and submit the affidavit and trust account statement required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

That order warned petitioner that failure to comply with the order would result in a 

recommendation of dismissal. The time for acting has passed and petitioner has not paid the 

filing fee, requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis, or otherwise responded to the court’s 

order. 

 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 fourteen days 

Case 2:15-cv-00723-MCE-EFB Document 7 Filed 05/15/15 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

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. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 

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

DATED: May 14, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-00723-MCE-EFB Document 7 Filed 05/15/15 Page 2 of 2