(PC) Cienfuegos v. Gipson et al, No. 1:2014cv00215 - Document 30 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER MODIFYING and ADOPTING 25 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and Dismissing Defendant Reifschneider for Failure to Efectuate Service of Process signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 09/30/2015. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEO CIENFUEGOS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 GIPSON, et al., 15 Defendants. Case No. 1:14-cv-00215 AWI DLB PC ORDER MODIFYING AND ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING DEFENDANT REIFSCHNEIDER FOR FAILURE TO EFFECTUATE SERVICE OF PROCESS (Document 25) 16 Plaintiff Leo Cienfuegos (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this 17 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Plaintiff filed his complaint on February 18, 2014, and a First 19 Amended Complaint on August 21, 2014. On February 9, 2015, Plaintiff was ordered to serve 20 Defendants Perez, Nadeau and Reifschneider. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 21 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On August 3, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that the 23 action be DISMISSED for Plaintiff’s failure to effectuate service of process of the summons and 24 First Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The Findings and 25 Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be filed 26 within thirty (30) days. 27 28 1 Plaintiff paid the filing fee and is not proceeding in forma pauperis. 1 1 During the objection period, Defendants Perez and Nadeau filed a motion to extend time to 2 file a responsive pleading, indicating that they had been served. Defendants Perez and Nadeau 3 subsequently filed an answer on August 21, 2015. 4 5 As to Defendant Reifschneider, Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations, nor has Defendant Reifschnedier made an appearance in this action. 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de 7 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the Findings 8 and Recommendations should be modified to reflect that Plaintiff has successfully served 9 Defendants Perez and Nadeau. However, as to Defendant Reifschneider, the analysis is proper and 10 supported by the record. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. 13 14 15 The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 3, 2015, are MODIFIED as noted above and ADOPTED AS MODIFIED; and 2. Defendant Reifschneider is DISMISSED FROM THIS ACTION for Plaintiff’s failure to effectuate service of process. 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 30, 2015 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 19 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.
