(PC) Jacobsen v. Maldinado, 1:17-cv-00101-AWI-BAM (PC). (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180111950
Visitors: 5
Filed: Jan. 10, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 10, 2018
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ORDER DISMISSING DOE DEFENDANTS, WITHOUT PREJUDICE (ECF No. 24) ANTHONY W. ISHII , Senior District Judge . Plaintiff Michael Jacobsen is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On November 30, 2017, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations finding that Plaintiff had failed to name the Doe Defendants and initiate service of process agains
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ORDER DISMISSING DOE DEFENDANTS, WITHOUT PREJUDICE (ECF No. 24) ANTHONY W. ISHII , Senior District Judge . Plaintiff Michael Jacobsen is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On November 30, 2017, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations finding that Plaintiff had failed to name the Doe Defendants and initiate service of process against..
More
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ORDER DISMISSING DOE DEFENDANTS, WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(ECF No. 24)
ANTHONY W. ISHII, Senior District Judge.
Plaintiff Michael Jacobsen is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On November 30, 2017, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations finding that Plaintiff had failed to name the Doe Defendants and initiate service of process against them within the time required pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Thus, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of all Doe Defendants from this action, without prejudice. (ECF No. 24.) Those 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.) More than fourteen days have passed, and no objections have been filed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 30, 2017, (ECF No. 24) are adopted in full;
2. Doe Defendants #1, #2, and #3 are dismissed from this action, without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m);
3. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff's claim for excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment against Officer Maldonado; and
4. The matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
