(PC) Howard v. Aryad

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GREGORY EUGENE HOWARD, No. 2:20-cv00081 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DR. ARYAD, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 By an order issued January 15, 2020, plaintiff was directed to file a completed in forma pauperis affidavit or, in the alternative, to pay the filing fees and to do so within thirty days. ECF No. 6 at 2. To that end, plaintiff was sent this court’s in forma pauperis application. At that time, plaintiff was warned that failure to properly and timely file it would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. See id. 22 More than thirty days have passed, and plaintiff has not filed the in forma pauperis application. Plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order in any way.

24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a District Court Judge to this action.

26 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice.

27 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 twenty-one 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 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 | (th Cir. 1991).

6 || DATED: June 9, 2021 ~ 7 Htttenr— Lhor—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1]