Carl Ethridge v. Doe

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING 17 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING Unidentified Doe Defendants from the Action for Failure to State a Cognizable Claim for Relief; ORDERED that this action shall proceed on Plaintiff's retaliation claim against Defendants: F.A. Rodriguez, Reyna, C. Rasey and V. Lawrence; ORDERED that this matter be referred back to Magistrate Judge for initiation of service of process, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 04/18/14. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CARL ETHRIDGE,

12
13
14

15

Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOE, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-02088-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION, DISMISSING
UNIDENTIFIED DOE DEFENDANTS FROM THE
ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF
[ECF No. 17]

Plaintiff Carl Ethrdige is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On December 16, 2013, the Court screening Plaintiff’s original complaint filed on December

20

28, 2012, and found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable retaliation claim against Defendants F.A.

21

Rodriguez, Reyna, C. Rasey, and V. Lawrence. However, Plaintiff did not state a cognizable

22

retaliation claim against any of the additional unidentified Doe defendants and Plaintiff was granted

23

the option of either filing an amended complaint or notifying the Court of his intent to proceed against

24

the above-named defendants only.

25

On March 12, 2014, Plaintiff notified the Court of his intent to proceed on the retaliation

26

against Defendants Rodriguez, Reyna, Rasey, and Lawrence only. (ECF No. 16.) Accordingly, as

27

advised in the Court’s December 16, 2013, screening order, Plaintiff fails to state a claim against the

28

any of the unidentified “Doe” defendants, and Findings and Recommendations to dismiss those “Doe”
1

1

defendants was issued on March 13, 2014. The Findings and Recommendation was served on

2

Plaintiff and contained notice that Objections to the Findings and Recommendation were to be filed

3

within fifteen days. No Objections were filed.

4

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

5

novo review 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.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed on March 13, 2014, is adopted in full; and

9

2.

This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against Defendants F.A.

10

Rodriguez, Reyna, C. Rasey, and V. Lawrence;

11

3.

12

cognizable claim for relief;

13

4.

All unidentified “Doe” defendants are DISMISSED from the action for failure to state a

The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for initiation of service of process.

14

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 18, 2014
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2