Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00509/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00509-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Anthony Fallon
Plaintiff
United States Government
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID ANTHONY FALLON, No. CIV.S-05-0509 MCE DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, initiated this

action by filing a complaint on March 15, 2005, along with an

application to proceed in forma pauperis. The matter was referred to

a United States Magistrate Judge by Local Rule 72-302(21) pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

By order filed April 15, 2005, plaintiff’s application to

proceed in forma pauperis was denied without prejudice to submitting

an amended application or payment of the required filing fee within

twenty days. In addition, plaintiff was ordered to show cause in

writing within twenty days why this matter should not be dismissed for

Case 2:05-cv-00509-MCE -DAD Document 4 Filed 05/23/05 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

2

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 

Plaintiff was forewarned that failure to timely comply with the terms

of the order would result in a recommendation that this action be

dismissed. The twenty-day period has now expired, and plaintiff has

not filed an amended in forma pauperis application, paid the required

filing fee or otherwise responded to the court’s order. Accordingly,

the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed without

prejudice. See L.R. 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

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)(1). Within twenty days after being

served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file

written objections with the court. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

1991).

DATED: May 20, 2005.

DAD:lg

ddad1/orders.prose/fallon0509.f&r.dism

Case 2:05-cv-00509-MCE -DAD Document 4 Filed 05/23/05 Page 2 of 2