Stincelli

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARL A. STINCELLI, No. 2:23-cv-2325 DAD DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 This matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c) and 28 18 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) for an Initial Scheduling Conference. (ECF No. 4.) Pursuant to Rule 16(b) of 19 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court has reviewed the parties’ joint status report (Doc. 20 No. 20) and has determined that the court need not “consult[] with the parties’ attorneys and any 21 unrepresented parties at a scheduling conference,” before issuing a scheduling order in this case. 22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(1)(B). Accordingly, the court vacates the initial scheduling conference set 23 for May 17, 2024, and hereby issues this scheduling order. 24 I. SERVICE OF PROCESS 25 The named defendant has been served as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5. 26 No further service is permitted without leave of court, good cause having…