Kulick v. Olmstead

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 25 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT R. J. KULICK, No. 24-2129 D.C. No. 2:23-cv-09335-AB-SK Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* REED H. OLMSTEAD; LAW OFFICES OF REED H. OLMSTEAD; DOES, 1-100, inclusive, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California André Birotte Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 18, 2025** Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and DESAI, Circuit Judges. R. J. Kulick appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing without prejudice his action alleging various federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order and failure to prosecute); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rules). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Kulick’s action after Kulick failed to comply with a court order to show cause. The district court warned Kulick that failure to demonstrate proper service of the summons and complaint or good cause for extending the service period would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a)-(c) (setting forth requirements for service of process, including that the summons must be served with a copy of the complaint); Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing the five factors for determining whether to dismiss a claim for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order); Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53 (explaining that a court must weigh the same five factors to determine whether dismissal for failure to follow a local rule was an abuse of discretion). Contrary to Kulick’s contention, a magistrate judge was not required to issue a report and recommendation regarding the merits of his complaint prior to service. AFFIRMED. 2 24-2129