(PC) Randolph v. CSP Sacramento

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MICHAEL RANDOLPH, No. 2:19-cv-01670 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CSP SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants.

By an order filed September 4, 2019, plaintiff was ordered to file a completed in forma pauperis application or pay the filing fee within thirty days and was cautioned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The thirty day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall assign a district judge to this action.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See 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)(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. YlIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

5 || Dated: November 5, 2019 bh rdf ht / (o— 6 CAROLYN K DELANEY 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 12/rand1670.fifp.docx