King v. Holland et al
ORDER ADOPTING 45 Findings and Recommendations Regarding Dismissal of Defendant Solis for Failure to Provide Sufficient Information to Effectuate Service, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/8/17. (Marrujo, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
S. HOLLAND et al.,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT SOLIS FOR
FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT
INFORMATION TO EFFECTUATE
(Doc. No. 45)
Plaintiff Rashad King is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 12, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge
issued findings and recommendations, recommending that defendant Solis be dismissed from this
action, without prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to effect service of the summons and
complaint as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (Doc. No. 45.) Those findings
and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto
were to be filed within fourteen days after service. (Id.) Plaintiff subsequently filed a document
entitled “Motion Showing Cause Why Defendant Solis Should not be dismissed from this
Action,” dated May 25, 2017, which the court will construe as plaintiff’s objections to the
findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 48.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s
objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and
by proper analysis.
In his objections, plaintiff contends he provided sufficient information to effect service on
defendant Solis, and that he had no knowledge of defendant Solis’s termination from employment
because such information is prohibited from disclosure to inmates. Plaintiff states that CDCR or
CCI State Prison will have the last known address or contact information for defendant Solis.
The court finds that plaintiff’s objections provide no basis for rejecting the magistrate judge’s
findings and recommendations. As noted in the findings and recommendations, the magistrate
judge has on two occasions directed the United States Marshal to serve defendant Solis using the
last known contact information provided by CDCR. The Marshal indicated that the telephone
number provided was incorrect, and the waiver packet was returned to sender. (Doc. No. 33; see
also Doc. No. 21.) Plaintiff has provided no new or additional information that would allow the
Marshal to effect service of process on defendant Solis.
1. The May 12, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 45) are adopted in full;
2. Defendant Solis is dismissed from this action, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s
failure to effect service of the summons and complaint as required by Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(m); and
3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate for proceedings consistent with
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 8, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?