Ransom v. Aguirre et al

Filing 65

ORDER Adopting 59 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DISMISSING Certain Defendants for Failure to Effectuate Service of Process signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/10/2014. Hubbard, Hugh, Lopez, Lovelady, Macias, Martines, Watkins, Weaver, Gibson and Hieng terminated. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

BRYAN E. RANSOM,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
vs.
RODOLFO AGUIRRE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12cv01343 AWI DLB PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND
DISMISSING CERTAIN DEFENDANTS
FOR FAILURE TO EFFECTUATE
SERVICE OF PROCESS
(Document 59)

16
17

Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

18

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this

19

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants Vogel, Perez, Marsical, Cortez,

20
21
22

Vellejo, Singh, Aguirre, Wooden, Alanis, Messick, Ulit, Moon, Kernan, Clark and Wang
removed the action on August 16, 2012.
On April 3, 2013, the Court ordered Plaintiff, who is not proceeding in forma pauperis, to

23

serve Defendants Martines, Watkins, Hieng, Lovelady, Hubbard, Hugh, Weaver, Macias, Lopez
24
25
26
27

and Gibson pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff failed to
serve these Defendants within one-hundred and twenty (120) days and the Court subsequently
issued an order to show cause.

28
1

1
2
3
4

On November 21, 2013, after Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause, the
Court issued Findings and Recommendations that Defendants Martines, Watkins, Hieng,
Lovelady, Hubbard, Hugh, Weaver, Macias, Lopez and Gibson be dismissed from this action for
Plaintiff’s failure to effectuate service of process. The Findings and Recommendations were

5

served on the parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30)
6
7

days. No objections have been filed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted

8
9
10

a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the
Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis.

11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

12

1.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed November 21, 2013, are ADOPTED in

2.

Defendants Martines, Watkins, Hieng, Lovelady, Hubbard, Hugh, Weaver,

13
14
15

full;

Macias, Lopez and Gibson are DISMISSED from this action.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated: January 10, 2014

19

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2