(PC) Tucker v. Daszko ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCELLIOUS TUCKER, No. 2:17-cv-1798 MCE KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 JAROM A. DASZKO, M.D., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a former prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. By an order filed 18 May 15, 2020, this court ordered plaintiff to complete and return to the court, within sixty days, 19 the USM-285 forms necessary to effect service on the sole remaining defendant, Dr. Daszko. 20 That sixty-day period has since passed, and plaintiff has not responded in any way to the court’s 21 order. 22 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See 23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 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 fourteen days 26 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 27 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings and 28 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time wOAOe YOUIVIY LENG IN RAVIOLI re PAY ee 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: July 29, 2020 ‘ Foci) Aharon 5 KENDALL J. NE /tuck1798.fusm UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28