(PC) Quintero v. Stewart, No. 2:2008cv00571 - Document 43 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge J. Michael Seabright on 2/23/11 VACATING 42 Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations. The court further DIRECTS the clerks office to reopen this action and mail plaintiff a copy of the 41 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, 42 order and this order. If plaintiff wishes to file an objection to the 41 Findings and Recommendations, her may do so by 3/16/2011. Case reopened. (Donati, J)

Download PDF
(PC) Quintero v. Stewart Doc. 43 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHRISTIAN T. QUINTERO, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) JOHN DOE #1, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) _______________________________ ) CIVIL NO. 2:08-00571 JMS-BMK ORDER: (1) VACATING THE FEBRUARY 23, 2011 ORDER ADOPTING THE JANUARY 25, 2011 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; (2) SETTING FORTH THE DEADLINE FOR OBJECTIONS TO THE JANUARY 25, 2011 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; AND (3) ORDERING THE CLERK OF COURT TO PROPERLY SERVE PLAINTIFF FILINGS IN THIS ACTION ORDER: (1) VACATING THE FEBRUARY 23, 2011 ORDER ADOPTING THE JANUARY 25, 2011 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; (2) SETTING FORTH THE DEADLINE FOR OBJECTIONS TO THE JANUARY 25, 2011 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; AND (3) ORDERING THE CLERK OF COURT TO PROPERLY SERVE PLAINTIFF FILINGS IN THIS ACTION On January 25, 2011, U.S. Magistrate Judge Barry M. Kurren entered his Finding and Recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice due to Plaintiff Christian T. Quintero’s (“Plaintiff”) failure to name a defendant (the “January 25 F&R”). Because no objections were filed, the court adopted the Dockets.Justia.com January 25 F&R on February 23, 2011, Doc. No. 42 (the “February 23 Order”), and this action was dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk’s Office subsequently determined, however, that the January 25 F&R was never sent to Plaintiff. The failure of the Clerk’s Office to provide a copy of the January 25 F&R is inexplicable -- this is now the second time the Clerk’s Office has failed to send copies of F&Rs in cases in which the undersigned is assigned (see AriasMaldonado v. Sisto et al., Civ. No. 02:08-00216 JMS/BMK, Doc. No. 56), and this failure both causes a delay in adjudicating these matters and wastes the court’s resources. Because Plaintiff -- through no fault of his own -- has not received a copy of the January 25 F&R, the court VACATES the February 23 Order adopting the January 25 F&R. The court further DIRECTS the Clerk’s Office to (1) reopen this action, and (2) mail Plaintiff a copy of the January 25 F&R, the February 23 Order, and this Order. If Plaintiff wishes to file an objection to the January 25 F&R, he may do so by March 16, 2011. If Plaintiff fails to file an objection by that date, the /// /// /// 2 court will adopt the January 25 F&R and this action will be dismissed without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, February 23, 2011. /s/ J. Michael Seabright _____________________________ J. Michael Seabright United States District Judge Quintero v. Doe, Civ. No. 2:08-00571 JMS-BMK, Order: (1) Vacating the February 23, 2011 Order Adopting the January 25, 2011 Findings and Recommendation That This Action Be Dismissed Without Prejudice; (2) Setting Forth the Deadline for Objections to the January 25, 2011 Findings and Recommendation That This Action Be Dismissed Without Prejudice; and (3) Ordering the Clerk of Court to Properly Serve Plaintiff Filings in This Action 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.