From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tunstall v. Fox

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 2, 2015
No. 2:15-cv-1806 CKD P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2015)

Opinion

No. 2:15-cv-1806 CKD P

12-02-2015

ROBERT WILLIAM TUNSTALL, JR., Plaintiff, v. ROBERT FOX, Defendant.


ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

By order filed October 19, 2015, plaintiff was ordered to file a proper complaint within thirty days or face dismissal of this action. That period has passed, and plaintiff has not filed a complaint or otherwise responded to the court's order. Nor has plaintiff filed a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis.

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

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

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. The 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. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: December 2, 2015

/s/_________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2 / tuns1806.fta_fr


Summaries of

Tunstall v. Fox

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 2, 2015
No. 2:15-cv-1806 CKD P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2015)
Case details for

Tunstall v. Fox

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT WILLIAM TUNSTALL, JR., Plaintiff, v. ROBERT FOX, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Dec 2, 2015

Citations

No. 2:15-cv-1806 CKD P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2015)