From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tanksley v. Sacramento Cnty. Jail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 11, 2020
No. 2:18-cv-3158-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2020)

Opinion

No. 2:18-cv-3158-EFB P

03-11-2020

MOODY WOODROW TANKSLEY, Plaintiff, v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al., Defendants.


ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff, a former county inmate, is proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

On February 6, 2020, the court screened plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. ECF No. 5. The court dismissed the complaint, explained the deficiencies therein, and granted plaintiff thirty days in which to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies. Id. The screening order warned plaintiff that failure to comply would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The time for acting has now passed and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Thus, it appears that plaintiff is unable or unwilling to cure the defects in the complaint.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. /////

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice for the reasons set forth in the February 6, 2020 screening order (ECF No. 5).

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. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). Dated: March 11, 2020.

/s/_________

EDMUND F. BRENNAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Tanksley v. Sacramento Cnty. Jail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 11, 2020
No. 2:18-cv-3158-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2020)
Case details for

Tanksley v. Sacramento Cnty. Jail

Case Details

Full title:MOODY WOODROW TANKSLEY, Plaintiff, v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al.…

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

Date published: Mar 11, 2020

Citations

No. 2:18-cv-3158-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2020)