1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 MICHAEL EDWARD MUEHLEMANN, et al., ) Case No.: 1:23-cv-0728 JLT EPG ) 12 Plaintiffs, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 13 v. ) THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE ) 14 ADVENTIST HEALTH HANFORD, ) ) (Doc. 4) 15 Defendant. ) ) 16 )

17 Michael Edward Muehlemann and Lavonda Louise Ireland, proceeding pro se, filed this 18 lawsuit. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiffs filed a single application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2.) The 19 assigned magistrate judge found the application was flawed, because it contained only Muehlemann’s 20 financial information, and this information conflicted with an application that Plaintiff Muehlemann 21 filed the same day in a separate case, Case No. 1:23-cv-00725-JLT-BAM. (Doc. 3 at 1.) Therefore, 22 the magistrate judge directed Plaintiffs to file separate IFP applications and clarify the discrepancies 23 no later than June 12, 2023. (Id. at 2.) The Court informed Plaintiffs that, in the alternative, they may 24 pay the filing fee by the ordered deadline. (Id.) The Court also advised them that “[f]ailure to comply 25 with [the] order may result in the dismissal of this action.” (Id. at 3.) 26 After the deadline passed, the magistrate judge observed that Plaintiffs had not filed separate 27 motions to proceed IFP or paid the filing fee as ordered. (Doc. 4.) The magistrate judge 28 recommended the action “be dismissed, without prejudice, based on Plaintiffs’ failure to pay the filing 1 || fee pursuant to

or to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28

.” Ud. at 2.) 3 The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiffs, and it notified them that any 4 || objections were due within 14 days of the date of service. (Doc. 4 at 2.) In addition, the Court 5 informed them that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of 6 || rights on appeal.” (Ud., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014), Baxter v. 7 || Sullivan,

(9th Cir. 1991).) Plaintiffs did not file objections and the time to do sc 8 || has passed. 9 According to

(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this Court conducted a de novo 10 || review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes the Findings and 11 || Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 12 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued June 30, 2023 (Doc. 4), are ADOPTED i1 13 full. 14 2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 15 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate any pending motions and close this case. 16 17 ||IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: _ August 20, 2023 ( Lin fi L. wan 19 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28