Humes v. Lukenbill et al

Filing 37

ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/10/2019 RECOMMENDING this action be dismissed without prejudice. Assigned and referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JON HUMES, 12 No. 2:17-cv-2609 KJN P Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS LUKENBILL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Service of process on sole remaining defendant Lukenbill was returned unexecuted on 17 18 February 11, 2019.1 On February 20, 2019, this court ordered plaintiff to complete and return to 19 the court, within sixty days, the USM-285 forms necessary to effect service on defendant 20 Lukenbill. Such sixty day period has since passed, and plaintiff has not responded in any way to 21 the court’s order. In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is 22 23 directed to assign a district judge to this case; and 24 //// 25 1 26 27 28 Prior service of process on defendant Greg Lukenbill was returned unexecuted on June 8, 2018, and the court attempted to provide some assistance to plaintiff by order filed November 13, 2018. However, in the recent unexecuted service, the U.S. Marshal noted that there are two correctional officers with the last name “Lukenbill” who are employed as correctional officers with the County, and plaintiff provided insufficient identifying information to determine which officer is named as defendant herein. 1 1 2 3 IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 4 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 5 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 6 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings and 7 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 8 may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 9 Cir. 1991). 10 Dated: May 10, 2019 11 12 /hume2609.fusm 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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?