(PC) Michoff v. El Dorado County ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN DAVID MICHOFF, No. 2:17-cv-02584-MCE-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 COBURN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 By an order filed February 21, 2010, this court ordered plaintiff to complete and return to 18 the court, within sixty days, the USM-285 form necessary to effect service on defendant 19 Ragusano. That time period has since passed, and plaintiff has not responded in any way to the 20 court’s order. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant Ragusano be dismissed 22 from this action without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). This action will proceed against 23 the remaining defendants who have been properly served. 24 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty days after 26 being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with 27 the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings and Recommendations.” 28 Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time MASS StF □□ EMOTE IVINS RN INEZ 2 PC ee OY Oe 1 | may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Y1st, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 2 | Cir. 1991). 3 | Dated: April 29, 2020 f° Lf i, / CAN fu fl. ay 4 CAROLYN K. DELANEY 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12/mic2584.fusm.docx 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28