Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01705/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01705-4/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 - 05cv1705

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

K. JAMEL WALKER and DALE R. HURD,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 05cv1705-LAB (NLS)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION; AND

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:

DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT

BOURLAND

vs.

JEANNE S. WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff moved for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) adding Mark Bourland

as a Defendant. On January 18, 2008, Magistrate Judge Nita Stormes issued her report and

recommendation (the “R&R”) recommending that Plaintiff’s motion be denied as moot because

Bourland was already a Defendant, and also recommending that Plaintiff be required to show cause

why Defendant Bourland should not be dismissed because of Plaintiff’s failure to serve and failure to

prosecute. The R&R required the parties to file their objections no later than January 28, and their

replies to objections no later than February 6. No objections were received.

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision, receive further

evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions” on a dispositive matter

prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent of the parties for all purposes. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 72(b); see also 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). A party objecting to the recommended disposition of

the matter may “serve and file specific objections to the proposed findings and recommendations,” and

“a party may respond to another party's objections.” Rule 72(b). “[T]he court shall make a de novo

Case 3:05-cv-01705-LAB-NLS Document 88 Filed 02/11/08 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

27

28

1

 Although several earlier reports and recommendations and rulings on Defendants’ motions

to dismiss earlier versions of the complaint mention Defendant Bourland, the motions were brought

by Defendants Woodford and Ryan, and not by Bourland.

- 2 - 05cv1705

determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to

which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“The statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate

judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”) The court

also reviews de novo the magistrate judge's conclusions of law. Gates v. Gomez, 60 F.3d 525, 530 (9th

Cir. 1995). 

The Court has reviewed the R&R and finds it correct as to Plaintiff’s failure to serve. It does

not appear Defendant Bourland has ever been served with process, waived service, or appeared in this

case.1 Civil Local Rule 41.1 does not, however, provide for dismissal of an individual defendant

where the action has been ongoing as to other Defendants. The R&R is therefore ADOPTED IN

PART. Plaintiff will be required to show cause for failure to serve, but not for failure to prosecute.

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), if a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint

is filed, the Court must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant unless the plaintiff

shows good cause for failure to serve. Plaintiff is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why

Defendant Bourland should not be dismissed because of Plaintiff’s failure to serve him with process.

Plaintiff may do so by filing a memorandum of points and authorities, no longer than five pages (not

counting any appended or lodged materials), no later than 15 calendar days from the date this order

is issued. If Plaintiff files a response, Defendants may file a reply subject to the same length

restrictions, no later than five calendar days after Plaintiff’s response is entered in the docket. If

Plaintiff fails to show cause as ordered within the time permitted, Defendant Bourland will be

dismissed as a party.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 11, 2008

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01705-LAB-NLS Document 88 Filed 02/11/08 Page 2 of 2