Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00725/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00725-14/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

STEVEN DEL TORO, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

VASUKI DARAM, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-0725 DJC AC P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 By order filed October 21, 2024, plaintiff was ordered to show cause, within twenty-one 

days, why defendant Schultz should not be dismissed for failure to effect timely service. ECF 

No. 56. The twenty-one-day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not shown cause or 

otherwise responded to the court’s order. For the reasons set forth in the October 21, 2024 order 

to show cause (ECF No. 56), which is incorporated herein by reference, the court finds that 

plaintiff has failed to timely serve defendant. Plaintiff has further failed to show good cause why 

defendant Schultz should not be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (when a defendant has not 

been served within ninety days after the complaint is filed the court must dismiss the action 

against that defendant unless plaintiff can show good cause for the failure). 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant Schultz be dismissed 

from this action for plaintiff’s failure to effect timely service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

 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 

Case 2:22-cv-00725-DJC-AC Document 60 Filed 12/03/24 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 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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: December 2, 2024 

Case 2:22-cv-00725-DJC-AC Document 60 Filed 12/03/24 Page 2 of 2