Misko v. Sullivan et al
Filing
66
ORDER ADOPTING 62 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONSP; ORDER DISMISSING Defendant Cleinlin from this action, without prejudice, based on Plaintiffs failure to effect service of the summons and complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/6/14. (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
JOHN T. MISKO,
10
11
12
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM SULLIVAN, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:10-cv-00713-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
DISMISSALOF DEFENDANT CLEINLIN
(CEILINE) FOR FAILURE TO
EFFECTUATE SERVICE OF PROCESS
(ECF Nos. 51, 58, 62)
15
16
Plaintiff John T. Misko (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
17
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action currently proceeds
18
against Defendants Cleinlin and Williams for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth
19
Amendment.
20
On May 15, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that this
21
action be dismissed against Defendant Cleinlin (Ceiline), without prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s
22
failure to effect service of the summons and complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
23
Procedure 4(m). The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties appearing in
24
this action and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fifteen days. (ECF
25
No. 62.) Plaintiff filed objections on June 5, 2014. (ECF No. 65.)
26
Plaintiff states that he was unaware that he had missed an order to respond issued by the
27
Court. Presumably, Plaintiff refers to the second order to show cause issued on March 31, 2014,
28
which directed Plaintiff to show cause why Defendant Cleinlin should not be dismissed from this
1
1
action. Although Plaintiff did not respond to the show cause order, Plaintiff’s objections do not
2
provide any new information for the U.S. Marshal to effect service of the summons and
3
complaint. Instead, Plaintiff refers to the medication records attached to his original complaint.
4
Plaintiff contends that these records provide sufficient information and suggests that the failure
5
to effectuate service is the fault of the U.S. Marshal.
6
Plaintiff’s objection is unsupported. The U. S. Marshals Service, with the assistance of a
7
special investigator from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, has
8
attempted to locate Defendant Cleinlin (Ceiline) on multiple occasions without success based on
9
information supplied by Plaintiff. (ECF Nos. 25, 29, 43, 51.) There is no indication that the
10
failure to effect service is the fault of the U.S. Marshal. Rather, the inability to effect service
11
appears to be the result of Plaintiff’s difficulty ascertaining the correct name of the defendant.
12
The Court has reviewed the cited records, but cannot decipher the signature that has been
13
attributed to Defendant Cleinlin (or Ceiline). Therefore, as recommended by the Magistrate
14
Judge, Defendant Cleinlin shall be dismissed from this action. This dismissal shall be without
15
prejudice in the event Plaintiff is able to properly identify this defendant as the action proceeds.
16
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted
17
a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Plaintiff’s
18
objections, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and
19
by proper analysis.
20
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
21
1. The Findings and Recommendations, issued on May 15, 2014, are adopted in full; and
22
2. Defendant Cleinlin is dismissed from this action, without prejudice, based on
23
Plaintiff’s failure to effect service of the summons and complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of
24
Civil Procedure 4(m).
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
June 6, 2014
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?