Solis v. County of Stanislaus et al
Filing
38
ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations Regarding Dismissal of Defendants Albonetti and King for Failure to Effectuate Service of Process, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/21/16. (Verduzco, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JAVIER SOLIS,
12
No. 1:14-cv-00937-DAD-BAM
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
QUIROZ, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS
ALBONETTI AND KING FOR FAILURE TO
EFFECTUATE SERVICE OF PROCESS
(Doc. Nos. 32, 35, 37)
17
18
Plaintiff Javier Solis, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action
19
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 19, 2014. (Doc. No. 1.) On May 22, 2016, the assigned
20
magistrate judge issued an order requiring plaintiff to show cause why defendants Albonetti and
21
King should not be dismissed from the action due to plaintiff’s failure to provide sufficient
22
information to effectuate service upon them.
23
otherwise respond to the order to show cause.
(Doc. No. 35.)
Plaintiff did not comply or
24
On June 3, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations
25
recommending that defendants Albonetti and King be dismissed from this action, without
26
prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to effectuate service of the summons and complaint upon them
27
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Those findings and recommendations were
28
served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14)
1
1
days after service. (Doc. No. 37.) More than fourteen days have passed and no objections have
2
been filed.
3
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
4
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings
5
and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
6
Accordingly,
7
1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 37) issued on June 3, 2016, are adopted
in full; and
8
9
2. Defendants Albonetti and King are dismissed from this action, without prejudice, due
10
to plaintiff’s failure to timely effectuate service of the summons and complaint upon
11
those defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
Dated:
14
July 21, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
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?