1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD EUGENE JAMES, No. 2:24-CV-1773-DAD-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 NICOLOFAR FADIKA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42

. 19 On July 8, 2024, the Court determined that Plaintiff’s complaint was appropriate 20 for service of Defendant Fadika. See ECF No. 5. Plaintiff submitted the paperwork necessary for 21 service by the Untied States Marshal and, on August 28, 2024, the Court directed service. See 22 ECF No. 12. On January 15, 2025, summons was returned by the United States Marshal as 23 unexecuted because Defendant Fadika could not be located or identified given the information 24 provided by Plaintiff. See ECF No. 16. On January 23, 2025, the Court directed Plaintiff to 25 provide additional information as to Defendant Fadika to enable the United States Marshal to 26 effect service of process. See ECF No. 17. Plaintiff was directed to comply within 60 days of the 27 date of the January 23, 2025, order. See

Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to comply could 28 result in dismissal of the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for lack of timely 1 service of process. See

To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the January 23, 2025, order 2 and Defendant Fadika remains unserved. 3 The Court must weigh five factors before imposing the harsh sanction of dismissal. 4 See Bautista v. Los Angeles County,

, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Malone v. U.S. Postal 5 Service,

(9th Cir. 1987). Those factors are: (1) the public's interest in 6 expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its own docket; (3) the risk of 7 prejudice to opposing parties; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; 8 and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See id.; see also Ghazali v. Moran,

, 9 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). A warning that the action may be dismissed as an appropriate 10 sanction is considered a less drastic alternative sufficient to satisfy the last factor. See Malone, 11

-33 & n.1. The sanction of dismissal for lack of prosecution is appropriate where 12 there has been unreasonable delay. See Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 13 1986). 14 Having considered these factors, and in light of Plaintiff’s failure to provide the 15 Court with information necessary to effect service of process on Defendant Fadika as ordered, the 16 Court finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate. 17 / / / 18 / / / 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / ] Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends as follows: 2 1. This action be dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and 3 || failure to comply with court rules and orders. 4 2. Plaintiffs motion for release of medical records, ECF No. 15, be denied as 5 |} moot. 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 7 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within 14 days 8 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 9 || objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 10 || objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See 11 | Martinez v. Yist,

(9th Cir. 1991). 12 13 | Dated: June 12, 2025 Ss..c0_, M4 DENNIS M. COTA 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28