Ethridge v. Childs et al
Filing
19
ORDER ADOPTING 18 Findings and Recommendations (1) Finding Cognizable Claim; (2) Finding Service of Second Amended Complaint Appropriate, and (3) Forwarding Service Documents to Plaintiff for Completion and Return Within Thirty Days, signed by Dist rict Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 7/3/2013. Service is appropriate for S. Childs, Hernandez. Clerk to send plaintiff: 2 Summons, 2 USM-285 Forms, and 1 copy of the 17 Second Amended Complaint filed on 5/2/2013. (Case Management Deadline: 8/8/2013). (Attachments: # 1 USM Instructions and Summons)(Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
CARL ETHRIDGE,
CASE No. 1:10-cv-01962-LJO-MJS (PC)
11
Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS (1) FINDING
COGNIZABLE CLAIM; (2) FINDING
SERVICE OF SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT APPROPRIATE, AND (3)
FORWARDING SERVICE DOCUMENTS
TO PLAINTIFF FOR COMPLETION AND
RETURN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
Defendants.
(ECF. No. 18)
12
13
v.
14
S. CHILDS, et al.,
15
16
/
17
18
19
Plaintiff Carl Ethridge is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
20
in this civil rights action filed October 20, 2010 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No.
21
1.) The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
22
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 of the United States District Court for the Eastern
23
District of California.
24
On June 3, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations
25
that Plaintiff should proceed on the Second Amended Complaint Eighth Amendment
26
conditions of confinement claim seeking damages against Defendants Hernandez and
27
Childs; all other claims and Defendant CDCR Secretary should be dismissed with
28
prejudice; and service should be initiated on Defendants Hernandez and Childs. (ECF
1
1
No. 18.) The fourteen day deadline to file objection to the findings and
2
recommendations was June 21, 2013, and Plaintiff did not object or otherwise respond
3
to the findings and recommendations.
4
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review
5
of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and
6
recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
7
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
8
1.
2013 (ECF No. 18) in full;
9
10
The Court adopts the findings and recommendations filed on June 3,
2.
Plaintiff shall proceed on the Second Amended Complaint Eighth
11
Amendment conditions of confinement claim seeking damages against
12
Defendants Hernandez and Childs;
13
3.
Defendant CDCR Secretary are dismissed with prejudice;
14
15
All other claims asserted in the Second Amended Complaint and
4.
Service shall be initiated on the following Defendants:
16
A. HERNANDEZ, Associate Warden, California Substance Abuse and
17
Treatment Facility - Corcoran State Prison;
18
S. CHILDS, Correctional Lieutenant, California Substance Abuse and
19
Treatment Facility - Corcoran State Prison;
20
5.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to send Plaintiff two (2) USM-285 forms,
21
two (2) summons, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an
22
instruction sheet and a copy of the Second Amended Complaint filed May
23
2, 2013;
24
6.
Within thirty (30) days from service of this order Plaintiff shall complete
25
and return to the Court the Notice of Submission of Documents along with
26
the following documents:
27
a.
Completed summons;
28
b.
One completed USM-285 form for each Defendant listed above;
2
and
1
c.
2
Three (3) copies of the endorsed Second Amended Complaint filed
May 2, 2013; and
3
7.
4
Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the Court shall direct the
5
United States Marshal to serve the above-named Defendants pursuant to
6
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs.
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
Dated:
July 3, 2013
/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
66h44d
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?