Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00013/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00013-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD LEE IVANS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0013 MCE DAD P

vs.

GLENN TOPPENBERG, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 26, 2004, the court determined that service was

appropriate for defendants Neal and Croll, and ordered plaintiff to submit specified documents

for service on the defendants by the U.S. Marshal. Service on defendant Neal was returned

unexecuted on March 4, 2005. Subsequently on March 17, 2005, the court ordered plaintiff to

provide additional information using discovery or other means available to plaintiff in order to

enable service on defendant Neal. On May 16, 2005, the court granted plaintiff an extension of

time until July 13, 2005 for this purpose. Plaintiff was also cautioned that pursuant to Rule 4(m)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court would dismiss an unserved defendant unless

plaintiff could show good cause for failing to effect service. On July 14, 2005, plaintiff filed a

letter indicating that he has been unable to obtain further information to facilitate service on

Case 2:04-cv-00013-MCE -DAD Document 25 Filed 08/04/05 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

defendant Neal and requesting that he now wished to have his case go forward with respect to

defendant Croll.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against

defendant Neal be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and 41(b).

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 twenty

days 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 Magistrate Judge’s 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: August 3, 2005.

DAD:4

ivan0013.4m

Case 2:04-cv-00013-MCE -DAD Document 25 Filed 08/04/05 Page 2 of 2