Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01240/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01240-10/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

27

28

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY LEWIS JONES,

Plaintiff,

vs.

C/O C. CARLOS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-01240-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 27)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION,

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, BASED ON

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE

SUFFICIENT INFORMATION FOR

U.S. MARSHAL TO EFFECT SERVICE

OF PROCESS (Docs. 24 and 25)

Plaintiff Timothy Lewis Jones (“plaintiff”) is a state

prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

rights action pursuant to 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 Rule 72-302.

On January 24, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations herein which was served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the Findings 

///

Case 1:05-cv-01240-LJO -SMS Document 30 Filed 03/20/07 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

27

28

2

and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. On

February 14, 2007, plaintiff filed an Objection.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)

and Local Rule 73-305, 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. Although plaintiff objects to the

dismissal of this action, he sets forth no grounds upon which to

allow this action to continue to proceed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

Specifically, the United States Marshal was unable to locate the

defendants in order to effect service of process. Plaintiff has

not provided any additional information, and has not made any

showing that if the action were allowed to proceed, he could supply

additional information leading to the location of defendants. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed January 24, 2007,

is ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), this

action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on plaintiff’s

failure to provide sufficient information for the United States

Marshal to locate and serve the defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01240-LJO -SMS Document 30 Filed 03/20/07 Page 2 of 2