Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00441/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00441-18/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

VERNON WAYNE McNEAL,

Plaintiff, 2:05-cv-0441-GEB-EFB-P 

vs.

EVERT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On September 24, 2007, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. The

recommendation was for the dismissal of defendants Bitle and Evert, for plaintiff’s failure to

return the USM-285 forms necessary to effect service on said defendants. Plaintiff filed

objections to the findings and recommendations. By order filed October 12, 2007, the court

granted plaintiff an extension of time in which to submit documents for service on defendants

Bitle and Evert and informed plaintiff that failure to provide new instructions for service upon

Case 2:05-cv-00441-TLN-EFB Document 64 Filed 01/14/08 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

1

 Regardless of the court’s continuance of the dates in the scheduling order (see docket #

59), it is Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 4(m) , not Rule 16, that applies. It has been more than two years

since this case was filed and 120 days have passed since the court found service proper for

defendants. 

2

defendants within the time allowed or show good cause for such failure would result in the

court’s September 24, 2007, findings and recommendations being submitted to the district judge.

Plaintiff filed another motion for extension of time on October 24, 2007, stating

that he required additional time in which to examine discovery responses from defendants

because they were difficult to read and, presumably, because plaintiff sought to determine

whether they contained information useful to plaintiff in serving defendants Bitle and Evert. 

That motion was granted by order filed October 26, 2007, which also contained notice to

plaintiff that after the expiration of the extension of time, the findings and recommendations of

September 24, 2007, would be sent on to the district judge if plaintiff again failed to provide

information for service defendants.1 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and

by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed September 24, 2007, are adopted in

full; and

2. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Bitle and Evert are dismissed. 

Dated: January 11, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00441-TLN-EFB Document 64 Filed 01/14/08 Page 2 of 2