Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Long v. Miner

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

August 12, 2013

EDWARD LONG, Plaintiff,
v.
D. MINER et al., Defendants.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action.

On August 27, 2012, the court ordered the United States Marshal to serve plaintiff's amended complaint on defendants Martinez, McClean, Miner, Williams, and Housley. Service has been effected on defendants Martinez, McClean, Miner, and Williams. However, the Marshal was unable to effect service on defendant Housley. On October 25, 2012, the court advised plaintiff that if he wished to proceed with his claims against defendant Housley, he would be required to provide additional information to the court that would enable the United States Marshal to serve this defendant. The court instructed plaintiff to promptly seek such information through any means available to him. The court also ordered plaintiff to submit within sixty days the documents necessary to effect service on defendant Housley. Although plaintiff submitted the necessary service documents, once again, based on the information plaintiff provided to the court the Marshal was unable to effect service on defendant Housley.

Under the circumstances of this case, the undersigned finds that plaintiff cannot show good cause for the failure to effect service on defendant Housley. Plaintiff has had more than sufficient time to provide the court with the additional information necessary to enable the United States Marshal to serve this defendant. Accordingly, the court concludes that defendant Housley should be dismissed from this action. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m).

For the reasons discussed above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant Housley be dismissed from this action without prejudice. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) and 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. ยง 636(b)(1). 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 Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen 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).


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.