(PS) Babatov v. Ford Motor Company

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KHADZHIMURAD BABATOV, Case No. 2:23-cv-02538-DJC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FORD MOTOR COMPANY, OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 15 Defendant. DAYS 18 In November 2023, plaintiff filed a complaint and paid the required filing fee. On April 30, 2024, after plaintiff failed to file a proof of service showing that defendant was properly served, I ordered him to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to timely serve defendant. ECF No. 4; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (“If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff— must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l) (requiring that proof of service be made to the court). I also warned plaintiff that failure to respond to the April 30, 2024 order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. ECF No. 4 at 2.

1 The deadline has passed, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order or otherwise | demonstrated that defendant was timely served.

3 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 4 1. This action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely complete service of || process.

6 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case.

7 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 of | service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the | court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed | within fourteen days of 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. See | Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 15 1991).

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 ( q oy — Dated: _ October 16, 2024 19 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE