1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CASSANDRA L. JOHNSON, Case No. 2:25-cv-1058-DAD-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 LOUIS DEJOY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On April 9, 2025, plaintiff filed this action and paid the required filing fee. On November 18 19, 2025, after plaintiff failed to file a proof of service showing that defendants were properly 19 served, I ordered him to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to timely 20 serve defendants. ECF No. 8; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (“If a defendant is not served within 90 21 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff— 22 must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made 23 within a specified time.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l) (requiring that proof of service be made to the 24 court). I also warned plaintiff that failure to respond to the November 19, 2025 order would 25 result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. ECF No. 8 at 2. 26 The deadline has passed, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order or otherwise 27 demonstrated that defendants were timely served. 28 1 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. This action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to timely complete service of 3 | process. 4 2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close the case. 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 6 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within fourteen days of 7 | service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 8 | court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 9 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 10 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 11 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 12 | Turner v. Duncan,

, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist,

(9th Cir. 13 1991). 14 1s IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 | q Sty — Dated: _ December 16, 2025 Q_-——— 17 JEREMY D. PETERSON 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28