(PC) Williams v. Medical Authorization Review Committee -Folsom State Prison, No. 2:2008cv01923 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: [VACATED per 31 Order] FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/20/09 RECOMMENDING that the plaintiff's claims against defendant Anita David be dismissed without prejudice; objections due within 20 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Gaydosh, J) Modified on 6/5/2009 (Dillon, M).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Williams v. Medical Authorization Review Committee -Folsom State Prison Doc. 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JAMES W. WILLIAMS, 11 12 13 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-1923 FCD DAD P vs. MED. AUTHORIZATION REVIEW COMM., et al., 14 Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 15 / 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 10, 2009, the court ordered plaintiff to submit a new USM-285 19 form for purposes of effecting service on defendant Anita David. Plaintiff was informed that the 20 United States Marshal had attempted service at the address provided by plaintiff and that the 21 documents had been returned unexecuted. The Marshal had also determined that defendant 22 David was no longer employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 23 (CDCR) and was not in the CDCR database. On April 13, 2009, plaintiff submitted a new USM- 24 285 form but it provides the same address for defendant David that appeared on the previous 25 USM-285 form. Plaintiff explains that defendant David was employed at High Desert State 26 Prison on April 30, 2008. However, the Marshal’s inquiries were made on December 15, 2008 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 and January 14, 2009, and are based on more recent information. It does not appear that plaintiff 2 can discover and provide a current address for the defendant. 3 The court is authorized to dismiss claims against a defendant who has not been 4 served with process within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, unless the plaintiff shows 5 good cause for failing to effect service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The undersigned finds that 6 plaintiff cannot show good cause for the failure to effect service on defendant Anita David. 7 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against defendant Anita David be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and 41(b). 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 10 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty 11 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 12 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 13 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 14 shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised 15 that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 16 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 DATED: April 20, 2009. 18 19 20 DAD:4 will1923.4m 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.
