IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 10, 2013
WILLIAM J. WHITSITT, PLAINTIFF,
PS HOLLINGSWORTH LOGISTICS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
By an order filed April 2, 2013, plaintiff was ordered to show cause within twenty-one (21) days for his failure to serve defendants with summons in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to respond to the order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Even though plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, and the Marshal was expected to ultimately serve the summons, plaintiff had an obligation to submit to the Marshal form 285 such that the Marshal could effect service. The twenty-one day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court's order. Plaintiff has apparently abandoned any efforts to have the defendant served herein. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; 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 and serve a copy on all parties. Such a 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).
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.