(PC) Ardell v. Sacramento Sheriff's Department et al, No. 2:2012cv02488 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: 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)

Download PDF
(PC) Ardell v. Sacramento Sheriff's Department et al Doc. 9 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 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.