Cienfuegos v. Gipson et al
Filing
30
ORDER MODIFYING and ADOPTING 25 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and Dismissing Defendant Reifschneider for Failure to Efectuate Service of Process signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 09/30/2015. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LEO CIENFUEGOS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
GIPSON, et al.,
15
Defendants.
Case No. 1:14-cv-00215 AWI DLB PC
ORDER MODIFYING AND ADOPTING
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
AND DISMISSING DEFENDANT
REIFSCHNEIDER FOR FAILURE TO
EFFECTUATE SERVICE OF PROCESS
(Document 25)
16
Plaintiff Leo Cienfuegos (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this
17
18
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Plaintiff filed his complaint on February 18, 2014, and a First
19
Amended Complaint on August 21, 2014. On February 9, 2015, Plaintiff was ordered to serve
20
Defendants Perez, Nadeau and Reifschneider. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
21
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
22
On August 3, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that the
23
action be DISMISSED for Plaintiff’s failure to effectuate service of process of the summons and
24
First Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The Findings and
25
Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be filed
26
within thirty (30) days.
27
28
1
Plaintiff paid the filing fee and is not proceeding in forma pauperis.
1
1
During the objection period, Defendants Perez and Nadeau filed a motion to extend time to
2
file a responsive pleading, indicating that they had been served. Defendants Perez and Nadeau
3
subsequently filed an answer on August 21, 2015.
4
5
As to Defendant Reifschneider, Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Findings and
Recommendations, nor has Defendant Reifschnedier made an appearance in this action.
6
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de
7
novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the Findings
8
and Recommendations should be modified to reflect that Plaintiff has successfully served
9
Defendants Perez and Nadeau. However, as to Defendant Reifschneider, the analysis is proper and
10
supported by the record.
11
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
12
1.
13
14
15
The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 3, 2015, are MODIFIED as noted
above and ADOPTED AS MODIFIED; and
2.
Defendant Reifschneider is DISMISSED FROM THIS ACTION for Plaintiff’s
failure to effectuate service of process.
16
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 30, 2015
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?