Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
James Jenkins sued Daniel Ruby, described in the order as a former police officer in Sanger, California, asserting that Ruby violated his civil rights. The order does not describe the underlying facts or legal theories, which appear in the complaint (Doc. 1) that was not part of the materials reviewed, and the ruling does not decide whether any claim has merit.
Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the time for serving a defendant after a complaint is filed. According to the order, the court granted Jenkins two extensions of time to effectuate service, yet he still failed to serve Ruby as the rule requires. A magistrate judge then issued Findings and Recommendations, dated October 5, 2026 (Doc. 11), concluding that dismissal of the defendant was appropriate on that basis. Because Ruby was the only defendant, the magistrate judge also determined that dismissing the entire action without prejudice was appropriate. Those were recommendations only, with no binding effect until the district judge acted on them.
The Findings and Recommendations were served on Jenkins with notice that any objections were due within 14 days. He was advised that failing to object within that time may result in waiver of certain rights on appeal, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014). Jenkins filed no objections, and the time to do so has passed.
The Court’s Holding
District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston stated that, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court performed a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the court concluded that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. The lack of objections therefore did not lead to adoption by default; the order recites an independent review before the recommendations were accepted.
The order contains four directives. It adopts the Findings and Recommendations dated October 5, 2026 (Doc. 11) in full. It dismisses Defendant Ruby without prejudice under Rule 4(m). It dismisses the action without prejudice. And it directs the Clerk of Court to close the case. The caption describes the disposition as dismissal for failure to serve, and the order rests on the magistrate judge's analysis rather than adding separate reasoning of its own.
The scope of relief is narrow. The dismissal is without prejudice, so it is not an adjudication of the civil rights claims. It is also not a dismissal with leave to amend or a grant of more time to serve; the case is closed rather than held open for another service attempt. The order does not discuss whether Jenkins may file a new action or how any limitations period might affect one, so those questions remain open and were not decided.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff who does not serve a defendant within Rule 4(m), even after two extensions of time, can face dismissal without prejudice of that defendant and, where the defendant is the only one, of the entire action.
- Failing to object to a magistrate judge's Findings and Recommendations did not end the district judge's own review here; the court recited a de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) before adopting them in full.
- Jenkins was warned that missing the 14-day objection deadline may waive certain rights on appeal, and the order does not decide what appellate consequences, if any, follow.
- A dismissal without prejudice is not a merits ruling, and this order does not address whether a newly filed case would be timely.
Why It Matters
This is a short, routine order, and its value lies in showing the usual path of an unserved, single-defendant case in the Eastern District of California: extensions of the service deadline, magistrate judge findings and recommendations, a 14-day objection window with a stated warning, de novo review, adoption in full, and closure of the case.
The order is unreported, so it carries no precedential weight and binds no other court; it applies established rules rather than announcing new law. Practitioners should read it as a reminder that Rule 4(m) deadlines are enforced even after repeated extensions, that the objection period is short, and that a dismissal without prejudice leaves the timing consequences of any new filing unresolved.