Messano v. California Highway Patrol

Sep 1, 2026
1:26-cv-03142

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF‘S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT‘S ORDERS AND PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m)

Plaintiffs Robert-John Messano, Jane Doe Messano, and Jane Does #1, #2, #3, and #4, proceeding pro se, initiated this action with the filing of a complaint against Defendants California Highway Patrol, Captain Chris Hamilton, Officer Vazquez, Officer Beavers, Officer Olivier, Sergeant Gardia, Sergeant Weldon, Corporal Victor Lawson, and the Inyo County Sheriff on April 24, 2026. Doc. 1.

On July 13, 2026, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why unserved Defendants should not be dismissed for Plaintiffs’ failure to serve the summons and complaint. Doc. 5. Plaintiffs were ordered to file proofs of service or, in the alternative, a declaration demonstrating good cause to extend the deadline to effect service upon Defendants. Id. at 2. Plaintiffs were warned that “[a]ny failure by Plaintiffs to timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court‘s orders and Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.” Id. at 3 (emphasis in original).

After Plaintiff failed to file any response to the Court‘s show cause order and failed to comply with the Court‘s instruction to timely file proofs of service or a declaration setting forth good cause to extend Rule 4(m)‘s 90-day deadline, on August 5, 2026, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to dismiss the action without prejudice for Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Court‘s orders and pursuant to Rule 4(m). Doc. 7. The Court served the findings and recommendations on Plaintiffs and notified them that any objections were due within 14 days. Id. at 5. No objections were filed and the time to do so has passed.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly,

  1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 5, 2026, Doc. 7, are ADOPTED IN FULL.
  2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Court‘s orders and pursuant to Rule 4(m). See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.
  3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2026

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE