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)
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?