Armstrong v. Garcia, et al
Filing
58
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/20/12 RECOMMENDING that defendant Mangis be dismissed. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 21 days.(Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
BRADY K. ARMSTRONG,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
No. 2: 11-cv–00965 GEB KJN P
vs.
SILVIA GARCIA, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
/
16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action
17
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 1, 2012, the undersigned ordered the United States
18
Marshal to serve defendants, including defendant Mangis.
19
On April 17, 2012, service as to defendant Mangis was returned unexecuted. On
20
May 9, 2012, plaintiff was granted sixty days to provide additional information in order for the
21
United States Marshal to serve defendant Mangis. Sixty days passed and plaintiff did not
22
provide additional information for service of defendant Mangis.
23
Because it does not appear that plaintiff can provide the United States Marshal
24
with the information necessary for service of defendant Mangis, the undersigned will recommend
25
that defendant Mangis be dismissed.
26
////
1
1
2
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant Mangis be
dismissed.1
3
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
4
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-
5
one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
6
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
7
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
8
objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The
9
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
10
appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
11
DATED: November 20, 2012
12
13
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
arm965.dis
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1
25
26
Moreover, even if plaintiff was provided with further opportunities and was able to
accomplish service of defendant Mangis, for the reasons set forth in findings and
recommendations filed concurrently herewith, the undersigned finds that plaintiff’s claims
against all of the named defendants are, inter alia, barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
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?