BENYAMINI v. O'BRIAN, 2:11-cv-2317 TLN AC P. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20151019681
Visitors: 5
Filed: Oct. 15, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 15, 2015
Summary: ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On August 27, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations we
Summary: ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On August 27, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations wer..
More
ORDER
TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On August 27, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 94. Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed August 27, 2015 (ECF No. 94), are adopted in full; and
2. Defendant Howe is dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely effect service of process and failure to follow court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); Local Rule 110.
Source: Leagle
