(PC) Tanksley v. Sacramento County Police Dept. et al, No. 2:2018cv03102 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/25/2019 ORDERING Clerk of Court to assign a district judge to this case and RECOMMENDING this action be dismissed without prejudice. Assigned and referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days after being served these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MOODY WOODROW TANKSLEY, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 2:18-cv-3102 KJN P Plaintiff, ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants. 17 18 By an order filed December 18, 2018, plaintiff was ordered to file a completed in forma 19 pauperis affidavit and a certified copy of his prison trust account statement, or pay the court’s 20 filing fee, and was cautioned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this 21 action be dismissed. The thirty-day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not responded to 22 the court’s order and has not filed the required documents. 23 24 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case; and 25 IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 26 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 27 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 28 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 1 1 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 2 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 3 objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 4 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 5 appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 Dated: January 25, 2019 7 8 tank3102.fifp 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
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.
