(PC) Dearwester v. United States

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRANK LEE DEARWESTER, No. 2:19-cv-0124 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Defendants.

17 On July 9, 2020, plaintiff was granted until August 15, 2020 to file a response to defendants’ motion to revoke plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status. Plaintiff was warned that failure to file a timely response would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff has not filed a response.

21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court assign a district court judge to this case; and 23 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

25 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, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings MADE SLD VY EATING IVINS INES MVOC 2 PI OF ee POY ee | and Recommendations.” Plaintiff advised that failure to file objections within the specified | time waives the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 | (9th Cir. 1991).

4 | Dated: August 25, 2020 f° Lf i, / CAN fu fl. ay CAROLYN K. DELANEY 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 dear0124.frs