Andrews v. Quick et al

Filing 7

ORDER denying 4 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Records. By Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 09/24/2013. (cbslc1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02578-CMA-CBS
WAYNE ANDREWS,
Plaintiff, Pro Se,
v.
GARY QUICK,
TIMOTHY GEITHNER,
DOUGLAS SHUMAN,
OFFICER IN CHARGE OF COLLECTIONS, P.O. Box 24017, Stop 76101, Fresno, CA,
ROSEANNE M. MILLER,
LISA K. JONES, and
UNKNOWN AGENTS OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer
This civil action comes before the court on Plaintiff’s “Motion to Compel
Production of Records.” Pursuant to the Order of Reference dated September 23,
2013 (Doc. # 5) and the memorandum dated September 23, 2013 (Doc. # 6), this
matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge. The court has reviewed the matter, the
entire case file, and the applicable law and is sufficiently advised in the premises.
Plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (see
Receipt Number 57991 for $400.00 filing fee paid), nor is he incarcerated. Plaintiff
resides in Castle Rock, Colorado. (See Complaint (Doc. # 1) at 7 of 7). Plaintiff has
not alleged or demonstrated that he is subject to any limitations in his ability to effect
service on the Defendants. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks service by the U.S.

1

Marshal, for these reasons, the court declines to request the U.S. Marshal to effect
service and directs that Plaintiff shall proceed himself to serve Defendants.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

“Motion to Compel Production of Records” (filed September 20, 2013)

(Doc. # 4) is DENIED.
2.

Plaintiff is reminded that “[i]f a defendant is not served within 120 days

after the complaint is filed, the court -- on motion or on its own after notice to the
plaintiff -- must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that
service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the
failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. . . .” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 4(m).
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 24th day of September, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

s/Craig B. Shaffer
United States Magistrate Judge

2