SALCEDO v. KING et al, No. 2:2019cv00066 - Document 19 (D. Me. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE re: 15 Report and Recommendations. By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (mjlt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
SALCEDO v. KING et al Doc. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE FRANKLIN J. SALCEDO, PLAINTIFF V. WILLIAM KING, ET AL., DEFENDANTS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL NO. 2:19-CV-66-DBH ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE On June 20, 2019, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the court, with a copy to the plaintiff, his Recommended Decision After Review of Plaintiff’s Complaint. The time within which to file an objection expired on July 5, 2019, and no objection has been filed. The Magistrate Judge notified the plaintiff that failure to object would waive his right to de novo review and appeal. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. The plaintiff’s right to privacy claim is DISMISSED but he may proceed on a deliberate indifference claim. Since it appears the plaintiff is no longer at the Cumberland County Jail and he has now provided an address where he can be reached, an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE is entered. Within 21 days, the plaintiff shall show why his lawsuit should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. See Local Rule 41.1(b). SO ORDERED. DATED THIS 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2018 /S/D. BROCK HORNBY D. BROCK HORNBY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
