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.

Earl J. anderson v. Ca. Highway Patrol

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


April 10, 2012

EARL J. ANDERSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CA. HIGHWAY PATROL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Carolyn K. Delaney United States Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

By an order filed February 22, 2012 plaintiff was ordered to file a fully completed in forma pauperis affidavit or pay the appropriate filing fees within thirty days and was cautioned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The thirty day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court's order and has not filed an in forma pauperis affidavit or paid the appropriate filing fee.

Although it appears from the file that plaintiff's copy of the order was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Local Rule 182(f). Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall assign a district judge to this action.

IT 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-one 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." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

20120410

© 1992-2012 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.