King v. Holland et al

Filing 51

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RASHAD KING, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:15-cv-01885-DAD-BAM v. S. HOLLAND et al., 15 Defendants. 16 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT SOLIS FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO EFFECTUATE SERVICE (Doc. No. 45) 17 18 19 Plaintiff Rashad King is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 20 21 civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 12, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge 22 issued findings and recommendations, recommending that defendant Solis be dismissed from this 23 action, without prejudice, based on plaintiff’s failure to effect service of the summons and 24 complaint as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (Doc. No. 45.) Those findings 25 and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto 26 were to be filed within fourteen days after service. (Id.) Plaintiff subsequently filed a document 27 entitled “Motion Showing Cause Why Defendant Solis Should not be dismissed from this 28 ///// 1 1 Action,” dated May 25, 2017, which the court will construe as plaintiff’s objections to the 2 findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 48.) 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, including plaintiff’s 5 objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 6 by proper analysis. 7 In his objections, plaintiff contends he provided sufficient information to effect service on 8 defendant Solis, and that he had no knowledge of defendant Solis’s termination from employment 9 because such information is prohibited from disclosure to inmates. Plaintiff states that CDCR or 10 CCI State Prison will have the last known address or contact information for defendant Solis. 11 The court finds that plaintiff’s objections provide no basis for rejecting the magistrate judge’s 12 findings and recommendations. As noted in the findings and recommendations, the magistrate 13 judge has on two occasions directed the United States Marshal to serve defendant Solis using the 14 last known contact information provided by CDCR. The Marshal indicated that the telephone 15 number provided was incorrect, and the waiver packet was returned to sender. (Doc. No. 33; see 16 also Doc. No. 21.) Plaintiff has provided no new or additional information that would allow the 17 Marshal to effect service of process on defendant Solis. 18 Accordingly, 19 1. The May 12, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 45) are adopted in full; 20 2. Defendant Solis is dismissed from this action, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s 21 failure to effect service of the summons and complaint as required by Federal Rule of 22 Civil Procedure 4(m); and 23 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate for proceedings consistent with 24 this order. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: August 8, 2017 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?