(PC) Tanksley v. Sacramento County Jail, et al.,, No. 2:2018cv03158 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 4/27/20 ADOPTING 7 Findings and Recommendations. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for the reasons set forth in the February 6, 2020 screening order 5 . CASE CLOSED. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MOODY WOODROW TANKSLEY, 11 12 13 No. 2:18-cv-3158-WBS-EFB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff, a former county inmate proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 17 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 18 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On March 11, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 20 which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the 21 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed 22 objections to the findings and recommendations.1 23 The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 24 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 25 ORDERED that: 26 27 28 Error! Main Document Only.Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 1 1 1 1. The findings and recommendations filed March 11, 2020, are adopted in full; 2 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for the reasons set forth in the February 3 6, 2020 screening order (ECF No. 5). 4 Dated: April 27, 2020 5 6 7 8 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.