(PC) Madueno v. Aramark Food Service Provider, No. 2:2011cv00589 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: 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)
Download PDF
(PC) Madueno v. Aramark Food Service Provider Doc. 11 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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