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.

Raheem Hanif v. Avenal State Prison Medical Staff

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


May 11, 2011

RAHEEM HANIF,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
AVENAL STATE PRISON MEDICAL STAFF, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE COURT TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS ACTION
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED

(Doc. 3)

On March 25, 2011, Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, initiated this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, Plaintiff, did not pay the $350 filing fee nor did he file a properly completed application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Thus, by order filed March 29, 2011, the Court directed Plaintiff to, within thirty days, either (1) pay the filing fee for this action; or (2) file a properly completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. The thirty-day period has since expired, and Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's order or otherwise respond to the Court's order.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall assign a district judge to this action.

Also, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee or submit a properly completed application to proceed in forma pauperis.

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)(1). Within twenty-one 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 his right to appeal the District Court's order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110511

© 1992-2011 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.