(PC) Michoff v. El Dorado County

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA STEVEN DAVID MICHOFF, No. 2:17-cv-02584-MCE-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS COBURN, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 By an order filed February 21, 2010, this court ordered plaintiff to complete and return to the court, within sixty days, the USM-285 form necessary to effect service on defendant Ragusano. That time period has since passed, and plaintiff has not responded in any way to the court’s order.

21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant Ragusano be dismissed from this action without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). This action will proceed against the remaining defendants who have been properly served.

24 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)(l). Within thirty 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.”

28 Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time MASS StF □□ EMOTE IVINS RN INEZ 2 PC ee OY Oe | may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Y1st, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th | Cir. 1991).

3 | Dated: April 29, 2020 f° Lf i, / CAN fu fl. ay 4 CAROLYN K. DELANEY 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 12/mic2584.fusm.docx