(PC) Armstrong v. Garcia, et al, No. 2:2011cv00965 - Document 58 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/20/12 RECOMMENDING that defendant Mangis be dismissed. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 21 days.(Dillon, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Armstrong v. Garcia, et al Doc. 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BRADY K. ARMSTRONG, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. 2: 11-cv–00965 GEB KJN P vs. SILVIA GARCIA, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action 17 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 1, 2012, the undersigned ordered the United States 18 Marshal to serve defendants, including defendant Mangis. 19 On April 17, 2012, service as to defendant Mangis was returned unexecuted. On 20 May 9, 2012, plaintiff was granted sixty days to provide additional information in order for the 21 United States Marshal to serve defendant Mangis. Sixty days passed and plaintiff did not 22 provide additional information for service of defendant Mangis. 23 Because it does not appear that plaintiff can provide the United States Marshal 24 with the information necessary for service of defendant Mangis, the undersigned will recommend 25 that defendant Mangis be dismissed. 26 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant Mangis be dismissed.1 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 4 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty- 5 one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 6 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 7 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 8 objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 9 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 10 appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 11 DATED: November 20, 2012 12 13 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 arm965.dis 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 25 26 Moreover, even if plaintiff was provided with further opportunities and was able to accomplish service of defendant Mangis, for the reasons set forth in findings and recommendations filed concurrently herewith, the undersigned finds that plaintiff’s claims against all of the named defendants are, inter alia, barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 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.
