From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Michoff v. Coburn

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 29, 2020
No. 2:17-cv-02584-MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2020)

Opinion

No. 2:17-cv-02584-MCE-CKD

04-29-2020

STEVEN DAVID MICHOFF, Plaintiff, v. COBURN, et al., Defendants.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

By an order filed February 21, 2010, this court ordered plaintiff to complete and return to the court, within sixty days, the USM-285 form necessary to effect service on defendant Ragusano. That time period has since passed, and plaintiff has not responded in any way to the court's order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant Ragusano be dismissed from this action without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). This action will proceed against the remaining defendants who have been properly served.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to 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: April 29, 2020

/s/_________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12/mic2584.fusm.docx


Summaries of

Michoff v. Coburn

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 29, 2020
No. 2:17-cv-02584-MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2020)
Case details for

Michoff v. Coburn

Case Details

Full title:STEVEN DAVID MICHOFF, Plaintiff, v. COBURN, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Apr 29, 2020

Citations

No. 2:17-cv-02584-MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2020)