Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02500/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02500-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Sex Discrimination

---

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

JESSE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, CIV S-05-2500 FCD KJM PS

v.

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21). 

Pursuant to 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 December 9, 2005, plaintiff was cautioned that this action may be

dismissed if service was not timely completed. This action was filed December 9, 2005 and

plaintiff has not yet served defendants with summons.

A status conference was held before the undersigned on May 3, 2006. Plaintiff

failed to appear. It appears plaintiff has abandoned this litigation.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02500-FCD-KJM Document 4 Filed 05/03/06 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

2

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 ten 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: May 3, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

006

williams.57

Case 2:05-cv-02500-FCD-KJM Document 4 Filed 05/03/06 Page 2 of 2