Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00836/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00836-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD RINGGOLD,

Plaintiff,

v.

BURGETT INC., et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-00836-DAD-CKD (PS)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

(Doc. Nos. 9, 17)

Plaintiff Edward Ringgold, proceeding pro se, initiated this civil action on May 18, 2022. 

(Doc. No. 1.) This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On October 14, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss this action due to insufficient service of 

process (Doc. No. 9) be denied, without prejudice. (Doc. No. 17.) The magistrate judge also 

recommended that plaintiff be granted a 30-day extension of time from the date of this order to 

effectuate service of process on defendants. (Id. at 6.) Those pending findings and 

recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto 

were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 6.) To date, no objections to the

pending findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now 

passed.

Case 2:22-cv-00836-DAD-CKD Document 21 Filed 11/08/22 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 14, 2022 (Doc. No. 17) are 

adopted in full; 

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 9) is denied, without prejudice;

3. Plaintiff shall effectuate service on defendants under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure no later than 30 days from the date of entry of this order; and

4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 8, 2022 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-00836-DAD-CKD Document 21 Filed 11/08/22 Page 2 of 2