Filed: Oct. 29, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 29, 2014
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (1) FOR SERVICE OF COGNIZABLE CLAIM IN FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANTS ALVA, MENDOZA, FRANCO AND O'DANIELS, (2) DISMISSING DEFENDANTS CHAN AND JOHNSON, and (3) DENYING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF Nos. 10 & 11) ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SERVICE DOCUMENTS (ECF No. 12) ANTHONY ISHII, District Judge. Plaintiff Tommie Lee Baker is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in t
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (1) FOR SERVICE OF COGNIZABLE CLAIM IN FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANTS ALVA, MENDOZA, FRANCO AND O'DANIELS, (2) DISMISSING DEFENDANTS CHAN AND JOHNSON, and (3) DENYING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF Nos. 10 & 11) ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SERVICE DOCUMENTS (ECF No. 12) ANTHONY ISHII, District Judge. Plaintiff Tommie Lee Baker is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in th..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (1) FOR SERVICE OF COGNIZABLE CLAIM IN FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANTS ALVA, MENDOZA, FRANCO AND O'DANIELS, (2) DISMISSING DEFENDANTS CHAN AND JOHNSON, and (3) DENYING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
(ECF Nos. 10 & 11)
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SERVICE DOCUMENTS
(ECF No. 12)
ANTHONY ISHII, District Judge.
Plaintiff Tommie Lee Baker is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed June 30, 2014 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
On September 17, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 11) that (1) Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief and extension of time should be denied, (2) Plaintiff should proceed on the First Amended Complaint failure to protect claim for damages against Defendants Alva, Mendoza, Franco, and O'Daniels, with service to be initiated on these Defendants, and (3) all other claims asserted in the First Amended Complaint and all other named Defendants should be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff did not object to the Findings and Recommendations and the time for doing so has expired. (ECF No. 11, at 8:3-7.)
On September 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to obtain the service documents provided for in the Findings and Recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Court adopts the Findings and Recommendations filed on September 17, 2014 (ECF No. 11), in full,
2. Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief and extension of time (ECF No. 10) is DENIED,
3. Plaintiff is to proceed on the First Amended Complaint failure to protect claim for damages against Defendants Alva, Mendoza, Franco and O'Daniels,
4. All other claims asserted in the First Amended Complaint and all other named Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice,
5. Service is to be initiated on the following Defendants:
ALVA — SATF Correctional Officer,
MENDOZA — SATF Correctional Officer,
FRANCO — SATF Correctional Officer,
O'DANIELS — SATF Correctional Officer,
6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send Plaintiff four (4) USM-285 forms, four (4) summons, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet and a copy of the First Amended Complaint filed September 2, 2014.
7. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff is to complete and return to the Court the notice of submission of documents along with the following documents:
a. Completed summons,
b. One completed USM-285 form for each Defendant listed above,
c. Five (5) copies of the endorsed First Amended Complaint filed September 2, 2014.
8. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the Court is to direct the United States Marshal to serve the above-named Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs, and
9. Plaintiff's September 29, 2014 motion to obtain the above service documents (ECF No. 12) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
