The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 MICHAEL L. OVERTON, No. 2:21-cv-0970 AC
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
14 CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PRISON
HEARINGS, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18 On June 9, 2021, plaintiff was sent and ordered to file a completed in forma pauperis
19 affidavit within thirty days, and he was cautioned that failure to do so would result in a
20 recommendation that this action be dismissed. ECF No. 3. The thirty-day period has now
21 expired, and plaintiff has not filed the document, nor has he responded to the court’s order in any
22 way.
23 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is
24 directed to randomly assign a District Judge to this action, and
25 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice.
26 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
27 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days
28 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections
1 | with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings
2 || and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified
3 || time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153
4 | (9th Cir. 1991).
5 || DATED: July 19, 2021 ~
6 Htttenr— Lhor—e_
ALLISON CLAIRE
7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
1]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28