Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Colvin v. Sanchez, 1:17-cv-01489-LJO-BAM (PC). (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20190124881 Visitors: 12
Filed: Jan. 23, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 23, 2019
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING DEFENDANTS GARCIA AND LOPEZ FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO IDENTIFY FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS (DOC. No. 20) LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . Plaintiff Robert M. Colvin is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff's complaint for excessive force against Defendants Cullen, Mesa, Lopez, Garcia, Ibarra
More

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING DEFENDANTS GARCIA AND LOPEZ FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO IDENTIFY FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS (DOC. No. 20)

Plaintiff Robert M. Colvin is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff's complaint for excessive force against Defendants Cullen, Mesa, Lopez, Garcia, Ibarra and Waddel, and for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Defendants Garcia, Martinez and Smith, both in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 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 October 24, 2017, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations recommending Defendants Garcia and Lopez be dismissed, without prejudice, under Rule 4(m) for failure to effectuate service of process. (Doc. No. 20.) The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections must be filed within fourteen days after service of that order. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff's deadline for objections was extended twice, on November 14, 2018, (Doc. No. 25), and on December 5, 2018, (Doc. No. 27). The extended deadline has now 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 this case and carefully reviewed the entire file. The Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants Garcia and Lopez are dismissed from this action, without prejudice, for Plaintiff's failure to serve them pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m); and 2. This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer