Jacobsen Jr v. Thienhaus et al

Filing 10

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that this case be dismissed for failure to effectuate service pursuant to Rule 4(m). Objections to R&R due by 8/11/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 7/28/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
CRAIG L. JACOBSEN, JR.,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
v.
13
O. THIENHAUS, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:16-cv-00331-JAD-NJK
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

16

This is a prisoner civil rights case, in which Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. On August 18, 2016,

17

the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint, allowing one claim to proceed, and ordered service to be

18

completed by Plaintiff submitting USM-285 forms to the United States Marshal. Docket No. 6. Such

19

service having not been completed, on October 31, 2016, the Court issued a notice of intent to dismiss

20

pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Docket No. 8. The Court did not receive

21

any response to that notice. On June 22, 2017, the Court then ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing,

22

no later than July 21, 2017, why this case should not be dismissed due to lack of service. Docket No.

23

9. Plaintiff did not respond. Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be

24

dismissed for failure to effectuate service pursuant to Rule 4(m).

25
26
27
28

DATED: July 28, 2017
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

1

NOTICE

2

Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2 any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be in

3

writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within (14) days after service of this Notice. The Supreme

4

Court has held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure

5

to file objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985), reh’g denied, 474

6

U.S. 1111 (1986). This Circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time

7

and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the

8

District Court’s order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst,

9

951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

10

1983).

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2