(PS) Amodo v. Homeq Servicing Corporation et al, No. 2:2010cv00177 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/26/2010 recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Objections due within 14 days after these findings and recommendations are filed. (Duong, D) Modified on 5/27/2010 (Duong, D).

Download PDF
(PS) Amodo v. Homeq Servicing Corporation et al Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 REYNALDO T. AMODO, No. CIV S-10-0177 MCE DAD PS 11 12 13 Plaintiff, v. HOMEQ SERVICING CORPORATION, et al., FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 14 Defendants. 15 16 / This matter came before the court on May 21, 2010 at 11:00 a.m. for a Status 17 (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference. Plaintiff did not file a status report on or before May 7, 2010, 18 as required by the court’s order setting the status conference, and no appearance was made by or 19 on behalf of plaintiff at the status conference. No defendant has appeared in the action, and no 20 return of service has been filed. 21 Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint and paid the required filing fee on January 22, 22 2010. Plaintiff also filed an ex parte motion for order to show cause and temporary restraining 23 order. Due to the unavailability of the assigned district judge, the case was temporarily 24 reassigned to District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton for consideration of the motion for injunctive 25 relief. By order filed January 22, 2010, Judge Karlton denied the motion on the ground that 26 plaintiff is unable to obtain injunctive relief for the alleged violations of federal law. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In the order setting this case for a status conference, plaintiff was advised that 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) “provides that an action may be dismissed against any 3 defendant on whom service of process has not been completed within 120 days from the date the 4 complaint was filed.” (Order filed Jan. 29, 2010 (Doc. No. 7.), at 2 (emphasis omitted).) When 5 the case came before the court for the status conference on May 21, 2010, only one day remained 6 of the 120-day period. The 120-day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not requested an 7 extension of time or shown good cause for an extension of time.1 The undersigned will therefore 8 recommend that the action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 9 Procedure 4(m) for failure to file evidence of service of process upon any defendant within 120 10 days after plaintiff’s complaint was filed. 11 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 13 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States 14 District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Any 15 objections to these findings and recommendations must be in submitted in writing and must be 16 filed within fourteen (14) days after these findings and recommendations are filed. A document 17 containing objections should be titled “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 18 Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 19 appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 20 DATED: May 25, 2010. 21 22 23 24 DAD:kw DDad1\orders.prose\amodo0177.oah.f&r.r4m 25 26 1 As noted above, plaintiff did not appear at the status conference. 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.