(PC) Womack v. Baughman

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RODNEY JEROME WOMACK, No. 2:17-cv-2708 TLN KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DAVID BAUGHMAN, Warden, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 By an order filed April 6, 2020, plaintiff was ordered to pay, within twenty-one days of the electronic filing of such order, the appropriate filing fee.1 That time period has now expired, and plaintiff has not paid the court’s filing fee, or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

20 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

22 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 On August 25, 2020, plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute.

28 (ECF No. 39.) wOAOe □□ □□□ VME PUOT ERINUING MVVUPEIOCTEIL ot POO Ivete Oy Ov | objections shall be filed and served 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. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

4 | Dated: September 1, 2020 Fens Arn 6 KENDALL J. NE voma2708 fpf UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE