(PC) Navarro v. StClair et al

Filing 24

ORDER ADOPTING 23 Findings and Recommendations and DISMISSING Defendant Hernandez, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/24/2021. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GILBERT NAVARRO,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
J. STCLAIR, et al.,

15

No. 1:20-cv-00524-NONE-SKO (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
DEFENDANT HERNANDEZ
(Doc. No. 23)

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Gilbert Navarro is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

17
18

this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States

19

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On January 4, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued an order to show cause, within

21

21 days, why Defendant Hernandez should not be dismissed from this action for failure to effect

22

service. (Doc. No. 22.) The magistrate judge noted that the California Department of Corrections

23

and Rehabilitation (CDCR) attempted service through the Court’s e-service pilot program;

24

however, e-service was unsuccessful because Ms. Hernandez is no longer employed with CDCR.

25

(Id. at 2.) The U.S. Marshals Service then attempted personal service at Ms. Hernandez’s last

26

known address; but that, too, was unsuccessful because she was no longer residing at that

27

location. (Id.) Plaintiff failed to respond to the order to show cause within the time provided.

28

///

Accordingly, on February 8, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and

1
2

recommendations, recommending that Defendant Hernandez be dismissed without prejudice for

3

failure to effect service, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (Doc. No. 23.) The

4

findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and provided him 14 days to file

5

objections thereto. (Id. at 23.) Plaintiff has not filed any objections and the time do so has

6

passed.

7

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a

8

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings

9

and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

10

Accordingly,

11

1.

adopted in full;

12
13

2.

Defendant Hernandez is dismissed from this action without prejudice for failure to
effect service, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m); and,

14
15

The findings and recommendations issued on February 8, 2021, (Doc. No. 23), are

3.

This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 24, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2