From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tucker v. Daszko

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 29, 2020
No. 2:17-cv-1798 MCE KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 29, 2020)

Opinion

No. 2:17-cv-1798 MCE KJN P

07-29-2020

MARCELLIOUS TUCKER, Plaintiff, v. JAROM A. DASZKO, M.D., Defendant.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a former prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. By an order filed May 15, 2020, this court ordered plaintiff to complete and return to the court, within sixty days, the USM-285 forms necessary to effect service on the sole remaining defendant, Dr. Daszko. That sixty-day period has since passed, and plaintiff has not responded in any way to the court's order.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

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 fourteen 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: July 29, 2020

/s/_________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE /tuck1798.fusm


Summaries of

Tucker v. Daszko

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 29, 2020
No. 2:17-cv-1798 MCE KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 29, 2020)
Case details for

Tucker v. Daszko

Case Details

Full title:MARCELLIOUS TUCKER, Plaintiff, v. JAROM A. DASZKO, M.D., Defendant.

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

Date published: Jul 29, 2020

Citations

No. 2:17-cv-1798 MCE KJN P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 29, 2020)