Martinez v. Rojas, 1:16-cv-01467-DAD-BAM (PC). (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20191211a17
Visitors: 9
Filed: Dec. 10, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 10, 2019
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. No. 53) DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff Antonio Martinez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On September 13, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendation recommending that defendant Officer Doe # 3 be
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. No. 53) DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . Plaintiff Antonio Martinez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On September 13, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendation recommending that defendant Officer Doe # 3 be d..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. No. 53)
DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.
Plaintiff Antonio Martinez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On September 13, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendation recommending that defendant Officer Doe # 3 be dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff's failure to name the doe defendant and initiate service of process as to that defendant within the time required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (Doc. No. 53.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 3-4.) No objections have been filed and the time in which to do so has passed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly,
1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 13, 2019 (Doc. No. 53) are adopted in full;
2. Defendant Officer Doe # 3 is dismissed from this action, without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m);
3. This action shall proceed against defendant Rojas for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and
4. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
