(HC) Wilson v. State of California

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MELVIN LEE WILSON, No. 2:20-cv-2217 DB P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 15 Respondent.

17 In an order filed on March 22, 2021, petitioner was ordered to submit an affidavit in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis or the appropriate filing fee. Petitioner was cautioned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

20 The thirty-day period to do so has expired and petitioner has not responded to the court’s order and has not filed the required documents.

22 In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case; and 24 IT IS RECOMMENDED this action be dismissed without prejudice.

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 thirty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner 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.” Petitioner is 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: May 20, 2021 4 ORAH BARNES DLBI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE || wils2217.fifp