Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02506/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02506-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Breach of Contract

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANCY HOWARD, JR.,

Plaintiff, CIV S-06-2506 MCE KJM PS

v.

DONALD RUMSFELD, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21). 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), the court may dismiss an action where service

of summons is not made within 120 days after the filing of the complaint. In the order setting

status conference, filed March 1, 2007, plaintiff was cautioned that this action may be dismissed

if service was not timely completed. This action was filed November 13, 2006 and plaintiff has

not yet served defendants with summons.

A status conference was held before the undersigned on October 24, 2007. 

Plaintiff failed to appear. It appears plaintiff has abandoned this litigation.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten days

Case 2:06-cv-02506-MCE -KJM Document 11 Filed 10/25/07 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

2

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and

filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are 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: October 24, 2007. 

006

howard.4m.57

Case 2:06-cv-02506-MCE -KJM Document 11 Filed 10/25/07 Page 2 of 2