(PC) Acosta v. Cayen ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARLOS ACOSTA, No. 2: 18-cv-02476 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 B. CAYEN, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a former state inmate, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this federal 18 civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 01, 2019, the court ordered the 19 United States Marshal to serve the complaint on defendant B. Cayen. Process was returned 20 unserved because the United States Marshal was unable to locate this defendant based on the 21 address provided by the CDCR or through additional investigative work. See ECF No. 13. On 22 January 08, 2020, plaintiff was ordered to provide additional information to serve this defendant 23 within sixty days. That sixty-day period has since passed, and plaintiff has not responded in any 24 way to the court’s order. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall assign a district judge to 26 this case. 27 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See 28 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 1 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 2 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 3 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 4 | with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings and 5 | Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 6 | may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 7 | Cir. 1991). 8 || Dated: November 18, 2020 Pee a4 if / bas CANO fe KOU — ? CAROLYN K. DELANEY 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 12/acos2476.fusm 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28