Reed v. Martinez et al

Filing 25

ORDER Denying as Moot 23 Motion to Compel. Plaintiff's failure to comply with this Order by serving Defendant by 11/3/2016 will result in a recommendation to Dismiss Case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 9/19/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

HOMER O. REED,

8
9
10

Case No. 2:15-cv-00142-APG-PAL
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

PEGGY MARTINEZ,

(Mot. for Service – ECF No. 23)
Defendant.

11
12

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Homer O. Reed’s Motion for Service (ECF

13

No. 23), filed August 19, 2016. On August 1st, the court issued a subpoena deuces tecum to

14

Aramark requiring the custodian of records for Aramark to disclose the last known address and

15

telephone number for Defendant Peggy Martinez directly to the U.S. Marshals Service (“USM”).

16

See Order (ECF No. 19). The court further ordered the USM to “use the information received

17

from the custodian of records to attempt to serve the summons and complaint on Defendant

18

Martinez.” Id. at 5. In the current motion, Mr. Reed acknowledges the court’s Order but

19

incorrectly states that the court ordered him to ask the Clerk of the Court to issue a subpoena.

20

Pursuant to the court’s instructions in the Order, the Clerk issued a subpoena to Aramark on

21

August 3rd. See Subpoena (ECF No. 22). Therefore, there is no need for Plaintiff to ask the

22

Clerk for a subpoena. The current motion is denied as moot. The other instructions and

23

deadlines stated in the Order (ECF No. 19) remain in effect.

24

Accordingly,

25

IT IS ORDERED:

26

1. Plaintiff Homer O. Reed’s Motion for Service (ECF No. 23) is DENIED as moot.

27

2. The other instructions and deadlines stated in the Order (ECF No. 19) remain in

28

effect:
1

1
2

a. Mr. Reed must file a notice with the court identifying whether Defendant
Martinez was served within 14 days after receiving the executed Form USM-285.

3

b. If the USM is unable to serve Defendant Martinez, and Mr. Reed wishes to have

4

service attempted again, he must file a timely motion specifying a more detailed

5

name and/or address for her, or whether some other manner of service should be

6

attempted.

7

c. Mr. Reed’s failure to comply with this Order by serving Defendant Martinez by

8

November 3, 2016, will result in a recommendation to the district judge that this

9

case be dismissed without prejudice.

10

Dated this 19th day of September, 2016.

11
12
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2