Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01192/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01192-7/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 The fifth amended complaint was filed on January 22, 2008. 

06cv1192

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY RASHAD JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN

TRANSIT SYSTEM; SNA DIEGO

TROLLEY, INC.; TRANSIT SYSTEMS

SECURITY; and A. CAMPBELL, Transit

Systems Security Officer,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 06cv1192 L (CAB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION [doc. #68];

DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO

SERVE THE COMPLAINT and

DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE

COURT TO CLOSE THIS CASE

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed this action alleging violation of his constitutional rights

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action was filed on June 5, 2006. As with all cases in this district,

a magistrate judge was assigned to conduct all pretrial matters and to prepare a Report and

Recommendation (“Report”) on dispositive motions and issues. See 28 U.S.C. § 636. 

Since this case was filed, plaintiff has amended his complaint four times1

 but has not

effectuated service of process. In granting plaintiff leave to file a fifth amended complaint, the

magistrate judge noted that plaintiff would not be permitted to further amend the complaint and

once the fifth amended complaint was filed, “Plaintiff shall complete the Forms 285 and forward

Case 3:06-cv-01192-L-CAB Document 72 Filed 08/11/08 Page 1 of 3
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 The Court notes that plaintiff’s mail has been returned as undeliverable. It appears

plaintiff did not receive the Report and Recommendation or the Order dismissing his appeal

before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiff has not provided the Court with a change of

address. 

2 06cv1192

them to the U.S. Marshal. Plaintiff is reminded that he must fill out the necessary forms with

care, using Defendants’ correct names.” (Order filed December 10, 2007 [doc. #52].) On

March 27, 2008, plaintiff filed a “motion for request of time limitation on service process of

marshal 285 form and serving defendants in a timly [sic] fashion etc. [sic].” [doc. #61.] The

magistrate judge again amply provided plaintiff with the information needed to serve defendant

MTS with the fifth amended complaint, going so far as to provide the address for MTS’s

counsel. (See Order filed April 14, 2008 at 2 [doc. #62].) Similarly, the Order noted that the

individual defendant, A. Campbell, had not been served with the fifth amended complaint and

had not provided cause for the delay in serving Campbell. Plaintiff was admonished that unless

Campbell was served with the fifth amended complaint by plaintiff providing the U.S. Marshal

with the completed Form 285, Campbell would be dismissed from the action. Id. at 3. 

Plaintiff has not served defendants. As a result, the magistrate judge entered a Report

recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to serve the

summons and complaint. Plaintiff was advised that any objection to the Report needed to be

filed by July 28, 2008. Plaintiff has not filed objections nor has he sought additional time in

which to file objections.2

The district court’s role in reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation is

set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under this statute, the district court “shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,” and “may accept,

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate

judge.” Id. Under this statute, “the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings

and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 124 S.Ct. 238 (2003).

Even though there has been no objection to the Report, the Court has considered the

Report on the merits and finds that dismissal of the action is appropriate. Based on the

Case 3:06-cv-01192-L-CAB Document 72 Filed 08/11/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3 06cv1192

foregoing, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiff’s action is 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to serve the complaint. The Clerk of the

Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 11, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:06-cv-01192-L-CAB Document 72 Filed 08/11/08 Page 3 of 3