Atcherley v. Clark et al
Filing
309
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS re 308 ; ORDER DENYING MOTIONS AS MOOT re 276 , 294 signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/2/2015. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
WILBUR ATCHERLEY,
12
Plaintiff,
v.
13
14
CLARK, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:12cv00225 LJO DLB (PC)
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION FOR
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN
DEFENDANTS
(Document 308)
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS AS MOOT
(Documents 276 and 294)
18
Plaintiff William Atcherley (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
19
in this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s Third
20
Amended Complaint, filed on January 26, 2015, for violation of the Eighth Amendment and
21
negligence against numerous Defendants.
22
On October 30, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation for voluntary dismissal of Defendants E.
23
Clark, D. Abadia, M. Ceballos, D. Castanon, A. Martinez, O. Borbolla, D. Brown, R. Hernandez, L.
24
Valentine, A. Holt, P. Kempf, H. Walker, L. Montebon, M. VanNatta, J. Kim, P. Amobi, S. Branson
25
and T. Ross. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4l(a)(l)(A)(ii).
26
///
27
///
28
1
1
2
3
4
The stipulation is GRANTED. Defendants E. Clark, D. Abadia, M. Ceballos, D. Castanon, A.
Martinez, O. Borbolla, D. Brown, R. Hernandez, L. Valentine, A. Holt, P. Kempf, H. Walker, L.
Montebon, M. VanNatta, J. Kim, P. Amobi, S. Branson and T. Ross are DISMISSED from this action
WITH PREJUDICE.1
5
6
Defendant Kim’s motion to dismiss (Document 276) and Plaintiff’s motion to reopen
discovery (Document 294) are DENIED AS MOOT.
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
November 2, 2015
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Defendants Rios and Torres remain in this action.
2
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?