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