Ardell v. Sacramento Sheriff's Department et al

Filing 9

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 12/05/12 vacating 7 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. In due course, the court will screen the amended complaint. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

KENNETH SMITH ARDELL,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13

vs.
SACRAMENTO SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

No. 2:12-cv-2488 LKK EFB P

/

ORDER

Plaintiff proceeds pro se with this civil action. This proceeding was referred to this court

16

by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On November 19, 2012, the court

17

recommended that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute after plaintiff failed to file an

18

amended complaint in accordance with the court’s October 17, 2012 order. On the same day,

19

plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

20

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

21

1. The November 19, 2012 findings and recommendations (Dckt. No. 7) are vacated; and

22

2. In due course, the court will screen the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

23

§ 1915(e)(2).

24

Dated: December 5, 2012.

25
26