Barrett v. Cate et al

Filing 49

ORDER ADOPTING 45 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDERED that all claims as to Defendant McGinnis are DISMISSED and Defendant McGinnis is Terminated from this action, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/26/2011. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

ROBERT E. BARRETT,

6

Case No. 1:09-cv-01741 LJO JLT (PC)

Plaintiff,

7

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

vs.
(Doc. 45)

8

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

9

Defendants.

10

/

11

On September 23, 2011 the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why Defendant McGinnis

12

should not be dismissed from the action. (Doc. 42). As noted in the Court’s order, Defendant McGinnis

13

was unserved, had not been located, and it appeared that Plaintiff had misidentified this defendant. Id.

14

On October 3, 2011 Plaintiff responded to the Court’s order and indicated that he had erroneously named

15

Defendant McGinnis in his complaint and that any “allegations made against “McGinnis” are to be

16

construed as allegations against Defendant McGuinness.” (Doc. 43). Accordingly, the Court issued its

17

Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 45), recommending that all claims as to Defendant McGinnis be

18

dismissed and that Defendant McGinnis be terminated from the action. Neither Party has filed

19

objections to the findings and recommendation.

20

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of this

21

case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the findings and recommendations

22

issued by the assigned Magistrate Judge are well supported by the record.

23

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that all claims as to Defendant McGinnis are dismissed

24

and Defendant McGinnis is terminated from this action.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

Dated:
b9ed48

October 26, 2011

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
1