(PC) Dowd v. Yates, No. 1:2007cv01505 - Document 84 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Defendant Arguerralde be dismissed from this action without prejudice, referred to Judge Wanger, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 12/8/2010. Objections to F&R due by 1/10/2011. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
(PC) Dowd v. Yates Doc. 84 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 RODNEY LAMONT DOWD, CASE NO. 1:07-CV-01505-OWW-DLB PC 9 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT ARGUERRALDE FROM ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 10 Plaintiff, v. 11 JAMES A. YATES, et al., (DOC. 80) 12 13 Defendants. / OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS 14 15 16 Findings And Recommendation Plaintiff Rodney Lamont Dowd (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 17 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 8, 2010, the 19 Court directed the United States Marshal to effect service of process on Defendant J. Arguerralde 20 on behalf of Plaintiff. Doc. 79. On August 20, 2010, the summons was returned unexecuted, 21 and the USM-285 form was returned to the Court. Doc. 80. The United States Marshal indicated 22 on the form that no individual by that name was employed at Pleasant Valley State Prison, where 23 the events giving rise to this action occurred. Id. Additionally, the CDC locator could find no 24 such individual by that name in the database. Id. 25 This was the third attempt to serve process on this Defendant. Plaintiff had previously 26 failed to correctly spell the Defendant’s name. As informed by the Court, Plaintiff is required to 27 provide sufficient information for the United States Marshal to effect service. See Walker v. 28 Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1421-22 (9th Cir. 1994), abrogated in part on other grounds, Sandin v. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). Plaintiff was unable to do so. Accordingly, the Court will 2 recommend dismissal of Defendant Arguerralde from this action without prejudice pursuant to 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). 4 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant Arguerralde be 5 dismissed from this action without prejudice. 6 These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District 7 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 8 fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties 9 may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to 10 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 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. 12 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3b142a December 8, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2