From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Patton v. Loadholt

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 21, 2020
No. 2: 19-cv-0451 KJN P (E.D. Cal. May. 21, 2020)

Opinion

No. 2: 19-cv-0451 KJN P

05-21-2020

ANTHONY L. PATTON, Plaintiff, v. F.N.P. LOADHOLT, et al., Defendants.


ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

By an order filed March 5, 2020, this court ordered plaintiff to complete and return to the court, within sixty days, the USM-285 form necessary to effect service on defendant Vidal Sanchez. That sixty days day period has since passed, and plaintiff has not responded in any way to the court's order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall appoint a district judge to this action; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant Vidal Sanchez be dismissed.

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: May 21, 2020

/s/_________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Patt451.fusm


Summaries of

Patton v. Loadholt

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 21, 2020
No. 2: 19-cv-0451 KJN P (E.D. Cal. May. 21, 2020)
Case details for

Patton v. Loadholt

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY L. PATTON, Plaintiff, v. F.N.P. LOADHOLT, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: May 21, 2020

Citations

No. 2: 19-cv-0451 KJN P (E.D. Cal. May. 21, 2020)