Brown v. Kyle, et al

Filing 114

ORDER Adopting 83 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, and DISMISSING Defendant Ruff from Action Pursuant to Rule 4(M) signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 8/23/2012. R - Ruff terminated. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

ALFRED BROWN,

10
11
12

CASE NO. 1:04-cv-06539-AWI-SKO PC
Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING
DEFENDANT RUFF FROM ACTION
PURSUANT TO RULE 4(M)

v.
DAVID KYLE, et al.,

(Docs. 71, 81, and 83)
13

Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff Alfred Brown, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

16

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 15, 2004. This action is currently

17

proceeding on Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed on October 23, 2006, against Defendants Kyle,

18

Domingo, and Ruff for acting with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs, in

19

violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

20

This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

21

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302, and on June 8, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a findings and

22

recommendations recommending that Defendant Ruff be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

23

Procedure 4(m). (Doc. 83.) On September 28, 2011, after obtaining an extension of time, Plaintiff

24

filed objections to the recommendation that Defendant Ruff be dismissed. (Doc. 95.)

25

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this case.

26

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be

27

supported by the record and by proper analysis. While Plaintiff’s frustration is understandable, the

28

United States Marshal attempted to serve Defendant Ruff at her last known residential address,
1

1

which was provided by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and by all

2

appearances, she no longer resides there. The avenues available in attempting to locate and serve

3

Defendant Ruff have been exhausted. Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994)

4

(quoting Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990)), abrogated on other grounds by

5

Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).

6

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1.

8
9

and
2.

10
11

The Court adopts the findings and recommendations filed on June 8, 2011, in full;

Defendant Ruff is dismissed from this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(m).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated:
0m8i78

August 23, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2