Ando v. Alliance Bancorp, et al

Filing 6

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, recommending this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to effect service on any defendant within time specified; failure to comply with multiple requirements of Court's 4/17/2012 4 Order; and failure to prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/13/2012. These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Within 14 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written Objections with Court. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

EDITH ANDO,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,

No. 2:12-cv-0523 KJM DAD PS

vs.
ALLIANCE BANCORP, et al.,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

15

/

16

On February 28, 2012, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint and paid the

17

required filing fee. The Clerk of the Court issued a summons as to defendants Alliance Bancorp;

18

Alternative Loan Trust 2006-OC11; Christina Balandran; Bank of America NA; Bank of New

19

York; Countrywide Homes Loans Servicing LP; Randolyn Logan; Michelle Miller; North

20

American Title Company; Recontrust Company; and the Bank of New York. On July 13, 2012,

21

the case came before the undersigned for a status conference pursuant to an order filed and

22

served on plaintiff on April 17, 2012. (Doc. No. 4). No appearance was made by or on behalf of

23

plaintiff or any defendant.

24

The order filed and served on plaintiff on April 17, 2012, cautioned plaintiff that

25

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that service of process must be

26

effected on each defendant within 120 days from the date the complaint was filed. (Doc. No. 4 at
1

1

3.) In this regard, the order advised plaintiff that “a defendant must be dismissed if service of the

2

summons and complaint is not accomplished on the defendant within 120 days after the

3

complaint was filed.” (Id. ) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)). Here, the 120-day period for service of

4

summons and the complaint began to run on February 28, 2012, and has lapsed. Plaintiff has

5

filed no evidence with the court that service of a summons and the complaint was effected on any

6

named defendant, and no defendant has appeared in the action.

7

The undersigned finds that plaintiff has failed to comply with Rule 4(m). In

8

addition, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to comply with the court’s April 17, 2012 order

9

requiring plaintiff to (1) appear at the status conference on July 13, 2012 in person or

10

telephonically, (2) file a certificate of service indicating the date and manner of service of the

11

April 17, 2012 order upon each defendant, and (3) file a status report on or before June 29, 2012.

12

(Doc. No. 4, at 1-2.) Plaintiff was informed that failure to file a timely status report or failure to

13

appear at the status conference “may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for

14

lack of prosecution and as a sanction for failure to comply with court orders and applicable

15

rules.” (Id. at 3.) Moreover, the court’s docket for this case reflects that plaintiff has failed to

16

take any steps to prosecute this action after filing the complaint and that no order served on

17

plaintiff has been returned to the court as undeliverable.

18

Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without

19

prejudice for failure to effect service on any defendant within the time specified in Rule 4(m) of

20

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, failure to comply with multiple requirements of the court’s

21

order filed April 17, 2012, and failure to prosecute this action.

22

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

23

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within

24

fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file

25

written objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections

26

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file
2

1

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See

2

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

3

DATED: July 13, 2012.

4
5
6
7

DAD:6
Ddad1\orders.pro se\ando0523.Rule4.f&rs

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3