Opinion
No. 2:12-cv-01304 DAD P
03-27-2013
RAHIM MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF VALLEJO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER AND
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
By an order filed June 11, 2012, this court directed plaintiff to complete and return to the court, within thirty days, the USM-285 forms necessary to effect service on defendant Bauer. However, that order was returned to the court as undeliverable on June 22, 2012. Following plaintiff's filing of a notice of a change of address with the court on August 20, 2012, on August 22, 2012, the June 11, 2012 order was re-served on plaintiff at his new address of record. Nonetheless, the thirty day period has long since passed, and plaintiff has not responded in any way to the court's order which directed him to complete and return to the court, within thirty days, the USM-285 forms necessary to effect service on defendant Bauer.
In the court's June 11, 2012 order, it was determined that plaintiff had failed to state a cognizable claim against the City of Vallejo. Accordingly, this action is proceeding solely against defendant Bauer and Doe defendants.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action be randomly assigned to a District Judge.
Also, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
______________
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE