ALEX LEONARDO AZEVEDO v. DAVID RICK NELSON, et al

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ALEX LEONARDO AZEVEDO, No. 2:24-cv-2995 DAD AC P 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. DAVID RICK NELSON, et al, 15 Defendants.

17 By order filed November 3, 2025, the district judge adopted in full the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and that plaintiff be required to pay the entire filing fee of $405. ECF No. 13.

20 The district judge directed plaintiff to pay the entire filing fee within thirty (30) days and warned that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this action. Id. at 2. The thirty-day period has now long expired, and plaintiff has not paid the fee or otherwise responded.

23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that 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 fourteen 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 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 | (th Cir. 1991).

4 | DATED: January 13, 2026 ~ 5 AMttun—Clone_ ALLISON CLAIRE 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE