Alan Thomas Rigby v. County of Orange California et al

Filing 99

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 96 by Judge Cormac J. Carney: IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that the County of Orange and Hutchens Motion to Dismiss 85 is granted and that plaintiffs claims a gainst these defendants are dismissed without leave to amend. On November 19, 2012, plaintiff was advised that he may use the discovery process to attempt to ascertain the identity of the unnamed Doe defendants. Plaintiff is further advised that, u nder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), service of the, summons and complaint (the Seventh Amended Complaint being the operative complaint) must be accomplished on each named defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint. By the Co urts calculation, the 120-day period expired on September 19, 2013. As plaintiff has failed to effectuate proper service within the allotted time, Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action without prejudice as to any unserved defendant(s) by reason of plaintiffs failure to prosecute. (ad)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALAN THOMAS RIGBY,

12

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14

COUNTY OF ORANGE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. SACV10-0695-CJC (DTB)
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Seventh Amended

19 Complaint, all the records and files herein, and the Report and Recommendation of
20 the United States Magistrate Judge. No objections to the Report and Recommendation
21 have been filed herein. The Court concurs with and accepts the findings, conclusions
22 and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
23

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that the County of Orange and Hutchen’s

24 Motion to Dismiss is granted and that plaintiff’s claims against these defendants are
25 dismissed without leave to amend.
26

On November 19, 2012, plaintiff was advised that he may use the discovery

27 process to attempt to ascertain the identity of the unnamed Doe defendants. Plaintiff
28 is further advised that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), service of the
1

1 summons and complaint (the Seventh Amended Complaint being the operative
2 complaint) must be accomplished on each named defendant within 120 days after the
3 filing of the complaint. By the Court’s calculation, the 120-day period expired on
4 September 19, 2013. As plaintiff has failed to effectuate proper service within the
5 allotted time, Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action without prejudice as
6 to any unserved defendant(s) by reason of plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.
7
8
9 Dated: November 21, 2013

_______________________________
CORMAC J. CARNEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2