(PC) Eiland v. Sacramento County Main Jail Medical Facility ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RODNEY CHARLES EILAND, No. 2:18-cv-1042 MCE KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 By order filed August 12, 2020, plaintiff was ordered to show cause, within sixty days, 19 why the John Doe defendants should not be dismissed, and this action terminated. The sixty-day 20 period has now expired, and plaintiff has not shown cause or otherwise responded to the court’s 21 order. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 23 1. Plaintiff’s claims against the John Doe defendants be dismissed without prejudice. See 24 Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 25 2. This action be terminated and judgment be entered. (See ECF No. 49.) 26 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 27 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 28 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 1 | with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 2 | and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 3 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Y1st, 951 F.2d 1153 4 | (9th Cir. 1991). 5 | Dated: October 27, 2020 Foci) Aharon 7 KENDALL J. NE eilal042.fse UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28