(PS) Richards-Daikai v. DMV State of California, No. 2:2015cv01720 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 4/14/15 recommending that this Action be dismissed without prejudice re 1 Complaint. These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. Objections to these F&Rs due within fourteen days. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Richards-Daikai v. DMV State of California Doc. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DE ION RICHARDS-DAIKAI, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 14 No. 2:15-cv-1720 MCE GGH PS v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant. 15 16 This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Pursuant 17 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) in effect when this action was filed, the court may 18 dismiss an action where service of summons is not made within 120 days after the filing of the 19 complaint.1 In the order requiring timely service filed December 2, 2015, plaintiff was cautioned 20 that this action may be dismissed if service was not timely completed. This action was filed 21 August 12, 2015 and plaintiff has not yet served defendant with summons. On March 17, 2016, 22 plaintiff was ordered to show cause, within fourteen days, why his action should not be dismissed 23 for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Plaintiff was warned that failure 24 to timely file the required writing would result in a recommendation that the case be dismissed. 25 26 27 28 1 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were recently amended to require service within ninety days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (December 1, 2015 amendments). Although it is generally the case that the current rules are to be applied, the undersigned exercises his discretion to use the rule in effect at time of filing. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 The fourteen day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not shown cause or otherwise 2 responded to the court’s order. 3 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 6 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 7 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 8 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 9 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 10 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 11 (9th Cir. 1991). 12 Dated: April 14, 2016 13 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 GGH:076/Richards-Daikai1720.fr 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.
