1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEPHEN FAVIS, No. 2:25-cv-1082-DAD-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 O-FILM GLOBAL (HK) TRADING LIMITED, A CORPORATION UNDER 15 THE LAWS OF HONG KONG, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, which was referred to the undersigned in 20 accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21). On August 29, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff’s 21 application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and set a 30-day deadline for refiling 22 such application or paying the filing fee. ECF No. 3. On October 31, 2025, this Court issued an 23 order for Plaintiff to show cause within 14 days as to why this case should not be dismissed for 24 failure to prosecute by refiling the application or paying the filing fee. ECF No. 4. To date, 25 Plaintiff has not filed a new application to proceed IFP, paid the filing fee, or otherwise 26 responded to the order to show cause. 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT this action be DISMISSED 28 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United 1 || States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). 2 || Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff 3 || may file written objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to 4 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is advised that 5 || failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 6 || Court’s order. Martinez v. Yist,

(9th Cir. 1991). 7 | DATED: November 21, 2025 SEAN C. RIORDAN 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28