1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ERNEST GODFREY LOGAN, Jr., No. 2:24-cv-2713-DJC-SCR 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 FOOD 4 LESS, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and this matter was referred to the undersigned in 17 accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21). Plaintiff filed this action on October 2, 2024, and for the 18 reasons set forth in the Court’s prior Order to Show Cause (OSC) (ECF No. 7) it appears Plaintiff 19 filed in the wrong venue. Further, it has now been more than 120 days since the filing of the 20 complaint, and there is no return/proof of service on file. The Court raised these issues 21 concerning service and venue in the OSC. ECF No. 7. The OSC was entered on January 14, 22 2025, and directed Plaintiff to show cause, in writing, within 14 days “why this action should not 23 be dismissed/transferred based on improper venue or dismissed based on failure to effect 24 service.” ECF No. 7 at 2. The Order warned that failure to respond would result in a 25 recommendation of dismissal. Id. Plaintiff did not respond to the OSC. 26 The Court now recommends that dismissal for three reasons. First, the action may be 27 dismissed for improper venue.

(a); Costlow v. Weeks,

(9th 28 Cir. 1986). Second, dismissal is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for 1 | failure to timely effect service. And third, dismissal is appropriate for failure to comply with the 2 || Court’s OSC pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 and Local Rule 110. 3 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed, without 4 || prejudice, and the case closed. 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 6 || assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 7 || days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 8 | objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 9 || Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiffis advised that failure to file 10 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 11 || Martinez v. Yist,

(9th Cir. 1991). 12 || DATED: February_6, 2024 fork 14 )

15 SEAN C. RIORDAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28