Bourmaian v. Gillespie et al

Filing 32

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/9/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
11

VARTKES BOURMAIAN,
#96851

12

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14

DOUGLAS GILLESPIE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
/

2:10-cv-02233-JCM-GWF
ORDER

16
17
18

Presently before the court is the matter of Bourmaian v. NaphCare Doctor, et. al. (Case No.
2:10-cv-02233-JCM-GWF).

19

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides: “If a defendant is not served within 120 days

20

after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must

21

dismiss the action without prejudice.”

22

Plaintiff filed the complaint on March 17, 2011. (Doc. #17). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

23

Procedure 4(m), on February 1, 2012, the clerk of the court provided notice to plaintiff that the action

24

would be dismissed as to the two remaining defendants, NaphCare Doctor and NaphCare Nurse, if

25

plaintiff did not file proof of service of process by March 2, 2012. (Doc. #31).

26

1

The court’s docket reflects that, to date, plaintiff has failed to serve the remaining defendants.

2

Further, plaintiff has failed to request an extension of time to determine the true identities of the

3

remaining defendants.

4

Accordingly,

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the above-captioned case be,

6
7

and the same hereby is, DISMISSED without prejudice.
DATED March 9, 2012.

8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2