Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-00555/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-00555-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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 - 04cv0555

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ENRIQUE MIRANDA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 04cv0555-LAB (CAB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

vs. RECOMMENDATION

HARVEY M. BOOKER, Supervisor I.N.S.

Inspector, KENNETH WALSH, I.N.S.

Inspector, RIAD TAYIAN, I.N.S. Inspector,

CLAUDIA RIOS, I.N.S. Inspector, LISSETE

GUZMAN, I.N.S. Inspector, MR.

NEDDERMEYER, I.N.S. Agent, JOHN

DOE(S) 1-10, in their individual capacities,

et. al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has unsuccessfully attempted several times to serve Defendants

in this action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,

403 U.S. 388 (1971). Most recently, Plaintiff moved for default judgment against Defendants.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Cathy Bencivengo, but

the motion was withdrawn when it was clear Plaintiff had not properly yet served the individual

Defendants. Judge Bencivengo issued her report and recommendation (“R&R”), deeming the motion

for default judgment withdrawn on the basis of Plaintiff’s own admission, because it was clear Plaintiff

had not yet properly served the individual defendants. (Id. at 3:2–4.) The R&R recommends Plaintiff

be given one last opportunity to effect service, but warned Plaintiff if his attempted service was again

unsuccessful, the action would be recommended for dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). (Id. at

Case 3:04-cv-00555-JLS-CAB Document 67 Filed 04/13/07 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 - 04cv0555

3:15–16.) As the R&R observes, while Plaintiff has repeatedly attempted service, he has not yet

succeeded, but in view of the briefing on the motion for default judgment, he should now be fully

prepared to complete service of process. (Id. at 3:14–19.) No objections to the R&R were filed.

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision” on a dispositive

matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the parties for all purposes.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). “The court shall make a de novo determination of

those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.

§636(b)(1). Section 636(b)(1) does not require some lesser review by the district court when no

objections are filed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985). The “statute makes it clear that

the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if

objection is made, but not otherwise.” U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en

banc) (emphasis in original).

The Court has reviewed the R&R and finds the recommendations supported by the law. The

Court therefore ADOPTS the R&R. Plaintiff may, no later than Friday, May 4, 2007, submit to the

United States Marshals’ Service a properly completed summons, form USM-285, and copy of the first

amended complaint for each individual Defendant. The Court has given Plaintiff ample opportunity

to research proper service on these Defendants. Plaintiff is admonished that he is responsible for the

accuracy and completeness of the materials he submits to the U.S. Marshals’ Service. Should Plaintiff

fail to accomplish service as directed within the time permitted, he is cautioned that this action may

be dismissed for failure to effect service.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 13, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00555-JLS-CAB Document 67 Filed 04/13/07 Page 2 of 2