Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01720/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01720-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Motor Vehicles of the State of California
Defendant
De Ion Richards-Daikai
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 

DE ION RICHARDS-DAIKAI, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES 

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:15-cv-1720 MCE GGH PS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

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

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) in effect when this action was filed, the court may 

dismiss an action where service of summons is not made within 120 days after the filing of the 

complaint.1 In the order requiring timely service filed December 2, 2015, plaintiff was cautioned 

that this action may be dismissed if service was not timely completed. This action was filed 

August 12, 2015 and plaintiff has not yet served defendant with summons. On March 17, 2016, 

plaintiff was ordered to show cause, within fourteen days, why his action should not be dismissed 

for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Plaintiff was warned that failure 

to timely file the required writing would result in a recommendation that the case be dismissed. 

 

1

 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were recently amended to require service within ninety 

days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (December 1, 2015 amendments). Although it is generally the case 

that the current rules are to be applied, the undersigned exercises his discretion to use the rule in 

effect at time of filing. 

Case 2:15-cv-01720-MCE-GGH Document 9 Filed 04/14/16 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

The fourteen day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not shown cause or otherwise 

responded to the court’s order. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: this action be dismissed without 

prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

 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 

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: April 14, 2016 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

 

GGH:076/Richards-Daikai1720.fr 

Case 2:15-cv-01720-MCE-GGH Document 9 Filed 04/14/16 Page 2 of 2