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)

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