From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Anderson v. Talisman

United States District Court, E.D. California
Oct 8, 2008
Case No. 1:07-cv-00715 ALA (P) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2008)

Opinion

Case No. 1:07-cv-00715 ALA (P).

October 8, 2008


ORDER


On September 12, 2008, this Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause on or before October 3, 2008 why the Court should not dismiss this action against Defendant Leblue who was not timely served as required by Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 22.) Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court's September 12, 2008 order. Under Rule 4(m), the Court may, "on its own after notice to the plaintiff . . . dismiss [an] action without prejudice against [a] defendant" who was "not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed." See FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m).

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause for his failure to timely serve Defendant Leblue as required by Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant LeBlue is dismissed from this case without prejudice; and,
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to dismiss this action without prejudice against Defendant Leblue.


Summaries of

Anderson v. Talisman

United States District Court, E.D. California
Oct 8, 2008
Case No. 1:07-cv-00715 ALA (P) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2008)
Case details for

Anderson v. Talisman

Case Details

Full title:RODOLFO C. ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. DR. TALISMAN, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Oct 8, 2008

Citations

Case No. 1:07-cv-00715 ALA (P) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2008)