Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00826/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00826-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TYRONE ADAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-11-0826 GEB CKD PS

vs.

CHARLES EASLEY, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

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

As provided by 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 29, 2011, plaintiff was cautioned that this action may be

dismissed if service was not timely completed. This action was filed March 25, 2011 and

plaintiff has not yet served all of the defendants with summons.

In the order filed May 26, 2011 after hearing on defendant Waggoman’s motion to

dismiss, the court again cautioned plaintiff that defendants must be timely served with summons. 

In the order filed September 1, 2011 after hearing on the motions to dismiss brought by

defendant Waggoman and the Sutter defendants, the court noted that plaintiff had submitted no

competent evidence regarding any alleged attempts to serve the nonappearing defendants. The

1

Case 2:11-cv-00826-GEB-CKD Document 42 Filed 10/04/11 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

court granted plaintiff an extension of time until September 30, 2011 to complete service of

summons in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. This action has now been

pending over six months. The record reflects that the nonappearing defendants have not been

properly served despite the court’s repeated admonitions and plaintiff being afforded additional

time to complete service of process. 

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 fourteen

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 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 4, 2011

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

adams.4m.57

2

Case 2:11-cv-00826-GEB-CKD Document 42 Filed 10/04/11 Page 2 of 2