Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Martin v. Martell

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 18, 2009

WILLIAM FRED MARTIN, PETITIONER,
v.
MICHAEL MARTELL, RESPONDENT.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On December 12, 2008, the court ordered petitioner to either file an in forma pauperis affidavit or pay the appropriate filing fee within 30 days and warned him that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The Clerk of the Court also mailed to petitioner a form application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

The 30-day period has expired and petitioner has not filed an in forma pauperis affidavit or otherwise responded to the December 12, 2008 order.

It therefore is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 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 twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party 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." Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

20090218

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.