(PC) Fratus v. Dayson ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JOHN FRATUS, No. 2:20-cv-0354 TLN DB P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 DAYSON, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 17 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered side effects from 18 psychiatric medication and was denied medical treatment. 19 On March 17, 2021, the undersigned ordered service of the complaint on defendants 20 Dayson, Houston, Vallar, Siegel, Rodgers, Hurley, and Lozano. (ECF No. 22.) Service was 21 returned executed on defendants Hurley and Lozano (ECF No. 26), but unexecuted as to Dayson, 22 Houston, Vallar, Siegel, and Rodgers (ECF No. 25). Plaintiff was instructed to provide additional 23 information so that these defendants could be served. (ECF No. 29.) Plaintiff sought and 24 received extension of time to provide the information. Plaintiff submitted the necessary materials 25 to initiate service on defendants Dayson, Houston, and Vallar. (ECF No. 40.) However, he did 26 not include materials necessary to initiate service as to defendants Siegel and Rodgers. 27 By order dated December 7, 2021, plaintiff was instructed to provide service documents 28 for defendants Siegel and Rodgers within thirty days or indicate that he did not wish to serve 1 || these defendants. (ECF No. 50.) Those thirty days have passed, and plaintiff has not filed service 2 || documents, state that he does not wish to serve these defendants, sought additional time to do so, 3 || or otherwise responded to the court’s order. Plaintiff was previously advised that failure to 4 || comply with the court’s order would result in a recommendation that these defendants be 5 || dismissed. (ECF No. 42.) Because plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order, it will 6 || recommend that defendants Siegel and Rodgers be dismissed from this action. 7 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants Siegel 8 || and Rodgers be dismissed from this action. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 10 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within twenty days 11 | 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 response to the 14 | objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 15 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 16 || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 || Dated: January 24, 2022 19 0 .B ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DBIDB Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/R/frat0354.serv fr