IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

TYSON-JAYMES: SHOTWELL, ) CIVIL NO. 23-00194 JAO-RT ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S vs. ) FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATION TO JOHN PANG, ) DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO ) SERVE AND DILIGENTLY Defendant. ) PROSECUTE _____________________________ ) ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS CASE FOR FAILURE TO SERVE AND DILIGENTLY PROSECUTE Findings and Recommendation having been filed and served on all parties on January 24, 2023, and no objections having been filed by any party, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, pursuant to

(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 74.1, the Findings and Recommendations are adopted as the opinion and order of this Court.1 1 With regard to actual notice, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Trader that there is no clear evidence Defendant John Pang has received actual notice of this lawsuit. Although Plaintiff submitted a U.S. Mail Return Receipt indicating that mail had been signed for by “John Pang” on 9/11/2023, it is not clear what was included in that mailing because Plaintiff has not submitted any declaration indicating what was mailed. ECF No. 16. Even assuming Defendant received notice of this lawsuit through that mailing or otherwise, the Court would still conclude that good cause to extend the time to serve is lacking here based on the other factors discussed regarding potential prejudice to Defendant and a lack of IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘, February 13, 2024.

oe mp. - yr @ ®, — 5 ge vat i Oe Sot Jill A. Otake > “ United States District Judge ans

Plaintiff sought to bring here. See ECF No. 6 (bringing, e.g., claims under

based on events occurring on May 11, 2022), Garcia v. Hawaii,

, at *8 n.15 (D. Haw. June 21, 2023) (“In Hawaii, the statute of limitations for actions under Section 1983 is two years from the date of the violation.’’) (citation omitted).