Madueno v. Aramark Food Service Provider

Filing 11

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 12/22/11 recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ORLANDO MADUENO,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

No. 2:11-cv-0589-JAM-JFM (PC)

vs.
ARAMARK FOOD SERVICE
PROVIDER; SOLANO COUNTY;

14
Defendants.

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

15
/
16
By an order filed November 9, 2011, this court ordered plaintiff to complete and
17
return to the court, within thirty days, the USM-285 forms necessary to effect service on
18
defendants. That thirty day period has since passed, and plaintiff has not responded in any way
19
to the court’s order.
20
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without
21
prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
22
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States
23
District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within
24
fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file
25
written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings
26
1

1

and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within

2

fourteen days after service of the objections. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections

3

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v.

4

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

5

DATED: December 22, 2011.

6
7
8
9

/014;made0589.fusm

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2