(PC) Patton v. Loadholt

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ANTHONY L. PATTON, No. 2: 19-cv-0451 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS F.N.P. LOADHOLT, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 By an order filed March 5, 2020, this court ordered plaintiff to complete and return to the court, within sixty days, the USM-285 form necessary to effect service on defendant Vidal Sanchez. That sixty days day period has since passed, and plaintiff has not responded in any way to the court’s order.

21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall appoint a district judge to this action; and 23 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant Vidal Sanchez be dismissed.

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 MADE 2 LD VME LING IN RATIO ot POO ete OY ove | may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Y1st, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th | Cir. 1991).

3 | Dated: May 21, 2020 ‘ Foci) Aharon 5 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Patt451.fusm