(PS) Dempsey v. Fickett et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BRIAN A. DEMPSEY
Plaintiff,
v.
FICKETT, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:25-cv-2650-DAD-JDP (PS)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
THIS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(Doc. No. 5)
Plaintiff initiated this civil action by filing a complaint on September 16, 2025, and
proceeds pro se. (Doc. No. 1.) This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c)(21).
On July 16, 2026, the assigned magistrate judge issued an order requiring plaintiff to show
cause in writing within fourteen days of the service of the order why this action should not be
dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to effect service of process within the time provided by Rule
4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 4.) Plaintiff did not respond to the order
to show cause in any way. Accordingly, on August 13, 2026, the magistrate judge issued the
pending findings and recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed without
prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to timely effect service of process and failure to comply with
court orders. (Doc. Jo. 5.)
/////
Case 2:25-cv-02650-DAD-JDP Document 6 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Those findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that
any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days of
service.1 (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff has not filed any objections, or otherwise communicated, with the
court and the time in which to do so has passed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the
findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly:
1. The findings and recommendations filed August 13, 2026 (Doc. No. 5), are
ADOPTED;
2. This action is dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to effect service
and failure to comply with court orders; and
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 14, 2026
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 The court notes that those findings and recommendations were returned to the court by the
U.S. Postal Service on November 25, 2025, as unable to forward.
Case 2:25-cv-02650-DAD-JDP Document 6 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 2