From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hall v. Macomber

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 18, 2022
2:20-cv-1701 KJM CKD P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2022)

Opinion

2:20-cv-1701 KJM CKD P

10-18-2022

DEMAGEO HALL, Plaintiff, v. JEFF MACOMBER, et al., Defendants.


ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CAROLYN K. DELANEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

On August 5, 2022, this court directed plaintiff to file a pretrial statement on or before October 3, 2022. Plaintiff has not responded to the court's order. The court will therefore recommend that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants are relieved from filing a pretrial statement; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See 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)(1). Within fourteen 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 response 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).


Summaries of

Hall v. Macomber

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 18, 2022
2:20-cv-1701 KJM CKD P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2022)
Case details for

Hall v. Macomber

Case Details

Full title:DEMAGEO HALL, Plaintiff, v. JEFF MACOMBER, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Oct 18, 2022

Citations

2:20-cv-1701 KJM CKD P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2022)