(PC) Patton v. Loadholt ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY L. PATTON, No. 2: 19-cv-0451 KJM KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 F.N.P. LOADHOLT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 By an order filed June 19, 2020, this court ordered plaintiff to complete and return to the 18 court, within sixty days, the USM-285 form necessary to effect service on defendant Sanchez. 19 (ECF No. 51.) That sixty days period has since passed, and plaintiff did not return the form for 20 service of defendant Sanchez. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant Sanchez be dismissed 22 without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 23 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 24 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 25 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 26 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings and 27 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 28 ///// 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: October 13, 2020 Acid) Aharon 5 KENDALL J. NE Patt451.fusm(2) 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