-JFM (PC) Randall v. Kimura, et al, No. 2:2010cv00052 - Document 52 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 09/30/11 recommending that defendant Kimura be dismissed from this action without prejudice. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-JFM (PC) Randall v. Kimura, et al Doc. 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JERALD RANDALL, 11 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, No. 2:10-cv-0052 JAM JFM (PC) vs. T. KIMURA, et al., Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS / By an order filed April 1, 2011, this court ordered plaintiff to complete and return 17 to the court, within sixty days, the USM-285 form necessary to effect service on defendant T. 18 Kimura. By order filed June 10, 2011, that sixty day period was extended for an additional 19 period of thirty days. The extended period has now passed and plaintiff has not returned the 20 required documents nor responded further to the court’s order. 21 22 23 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant Kimura be dismissed from this action without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States 24 District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 25 fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file 26 written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within 2 fourteen days after service of the objections. Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections 3 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 4 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 5 DATED: September 30, 2011. 6 7 8 9 10 12 rand0052.fusm 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
