Woodfill

(PC) Ruiz v. Woodfill

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 20, 20202:20-cv-00205California270 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, No. 2:20-cv-0205 KJM AC P Plaintiff,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

v. D. WOODFILL, et al. Defendants. 16 By order filed March 11, 2020, plaintiff was ordered to pay the filing fee and was cautioned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. ECF No. 8. The thirty-day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order or paid the filing fee. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 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 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 //// //// wOAIe 2 OU VOM UING INIT ENN …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.