United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 2020

(PS) Harvey v. Nevada

(PS) Harvey v. Nevada
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Decided November 10, 2020
(PS) Harvey v. Nevada

Trial Court Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DANIEL THOMAS HARVEY, No. 2:19-cv-01123-TLN-CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS NEVADA, et. al., 15 Defendants.

17 On March 24, the district judge assigned to this action ordered the plaintiff to show cause within ten days why the remaining defendants in this action should not be dismissed for failure to timely serve the complaint on those defendants. (ECF No. 71.) Plaintiff had already been cautioned that “failure to timely serve these defendants may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed as to these defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).” (ECF No. 46 at 2.).

22 to file a status report at least fourteen days prior to the conference. (ECF No. 14). Plaintiff has not responded to the order to show cause.

24 As provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), the court may dismiss an action where service of summons is not made within 90 days after the filing of the complaint. This action was filed on June 19, 2019 and plaintiff has not served the remaining defendants with summons. It appears plaintiff has abandoned this litigation.

28 //// 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. The action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 A1(b).

4 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.

5 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)(). 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.” Failure to file objections | within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 11 Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

13 | Dated: November 10, 2020 eo dp. Al x 4 CAROLYN K DELANEY) 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE |} /cd

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.