IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 12, 2012
FRED LEVI, PLAINTIFF,
M. CATE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Carolyn K. Delaney United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). This action was filed November 30, 2011. Plaintiff was granted numerous extensions to pay the filing fee and finally, on April 30, 2012, the filing fee was paid. In an order filed May 2, 2012, the court noted that service of summons had not been timely made in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and directed plaintiff to complete service of summons within sixty days. Plaintiff thereafter requested an extension of time to complete service of summons and by order filed June 27, 2012, plaintiff was directed to serve summons no later than August 28, 2012 and to file a proof of service of said summons. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to comply with the order might result in a recommendation of dismissal. Plaintiff has not complied with the order. This case has now been pending for over nine months and there is no evidence that plaintiff has taken appropriate steps to prosecute the action or to timely serve defendants with summons.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. 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, 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).
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.