(PS) Selck v. Kaiser Permanente ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MORREY SELCK, No. 2:19-cv-977-JAM-EFB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 KAISER PERMANENTE, 15 Defendant. 16 17 The court previously issued an order setting a status (pretrial scheduling) conference for 18 February 19, 2020.1 The order directed plaintiff to complete service of process on the defendant 19 within 90 days and to serve a copy of the order concurrently with service of the summons and 20 complaint. The order also directed the parties to file status reports fourteen days prior to the 21 scheduling conference. ECF No. 9. 22 Plaintiff did not timely file a status report, nor did he file a proof of service demonstrating 23 that defendant was properly served. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l)(l) (requiring that proof of service be 24 made to the court). Accordingly, the status conference was continued, and plaintiff was ordered 25 to show cause, by no later than March 25, 2020, why this case should not be dismissed for failure 26 to effect service of process and/or failure to comply with the court’s order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 27 1 This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, is before the undersigned 28 pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1 | 41(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4am); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110 (‘Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with 2 || these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and 3 || all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.”’); see also 4 | E.D. Cal. L.R. 183 (‘Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound 5 || by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure and by these Local Rules.”). Plaintiff was 6 | also admonished that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be 7 | dismissed. Jd. 8 The deadline has passed, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order to show 9 || cause.” 10 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the April 8, 2020 scheduling conference is 11 || vacated. 12 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to timely effect 13 || services of process, failure to comply with court orders, and for lack of prosecution. 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 15 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 16 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 17 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 18 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 19 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 20 || Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 || Dated: April 6, 2020. 22 tid. HDeMA 3 EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 *6 ? Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the order was returned, plaintiff 27 || was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of 28 | the party is fully effective.