Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02059/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02059-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection 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 

ANTONETTE GLASS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DISCOVERY FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

LLC., 

Defendant. 

No. 2:19-cv-02059 KJM AC PS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The action was accordingly referred to the 

undersigned for pretrial matters by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21). Plaintiff filed her 

complaint on October 15, 2019. ECF No. 1. On October 16, 2019, a scheduling order was issued 

in this case ordering the plaintiff, who paid the filing fee, to complete service of process within 90 

days. ECF No. 3 at 1. The deadline passed, and no proof of service was filed. 

On January 15, 2020, the undersigned issued an order stating that “Plaintiff is Ordered to 

Show Cause, in writing no later than January 29, 2020, why this action should not be dismissed 

for failure to prosecute” due to plaintiff’s failure to complete service. ECF No. 5 at 1. Plaintiff 

did not respond. Defendant has not appeared, and there is no indication that defendant has been 

served. Plaintiff has been cautioned multiple times that failure to complete service could lead to a 

//// 

Case 2:19-cv-02059-KJM-AC Document 6 Filed 01/31/20 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 

recommendation that the action be dismissed. Plaintiff has not responded to the court’s orders, 

nor taken any action to prosecute this case. 

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without 

prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the court’s order. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one 

(21) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 

objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: January 30, 2020 

Case 2:19-cv-02059-KJM-AC Document 6 Filed 01/31/20 Page 2 of 2