(PC) Acevedo v. Unknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARMANDO ZEPEDA ACEVEDO, No. 2:21-cv-0524 KJN P

Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

UNKNOWN,

Defendant.

By order filed March 25, 2021, plaintiff was informed that his letter was insufficient to commence an action. He was granted thirty days leave to file a complaint along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis or the court’s filing fee. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to comply with the order would result in a recommendation that this matter be dismissed. Thirty days from the order have now passed, and plaintiff has not filed a complaint, or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case; and

IT IS RECOMMENDED that this matter be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 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)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff 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.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Y1st, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: May 4, 2021

Fens Arn g KENDALL J. NE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE jacevos24.tta