Arceo v. DVI, et al

Filing 33

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/6/2016 DENYING as moot plaintiff's 29 motion to stay. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY ARCEO,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:11-cv-2396 MCE KJN P

v.

ORDER

SOCORRO SALINAS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. On March 18, 2016, the

18

undersigned recommended that this action proceed on his retaliation claims against defendants

19

Surjick, Kong, Adams, and McHugh for their actions in February of 2012; and defendant Savage

20

based on his actions in September of 2012, and that the remaining claims against the remaining

21

defendants be dismissed. On April 22, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for stay, asking the court not

22

to process the service of process documents until the district court reviewed plaintiff’s objections

23

and the findings and recommendations.

24

Plaintiff did not file objections.1 On May 5, 2016, the district court adopted the findings

25

and recommendations. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for stay is now moot, and is denied without

26

prejudice. By separate order, the court will direct the U.S. Marshal to serve process.

27
28

1

Plaintiff’s motion for stay states that his objections would be filed separately. (ECF No. 29.)
1

1
2
3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to stay (ECF No. 29) is
denied as moot.
Dated: May 6, 2016

4
5
/cw/arce2396.den

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2