Ransom v. McCabe et al

Filing 96

ORDER ADOPTING 90 & 92 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and ORDER DISMISSING Defendant Brooks and Doe Defendants From This Action signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/2/2018. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRYAN E. RANSOM, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 MCCABE, et al., 15 16 17 No. 1:13-cv-01779-DAD-GSA-PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING DEFENDANT BROOKS AND DOE DEFENDANTS FROM THIS ACTION Defendants. (Doc. Nos. 90, 92) Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge 19 assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On September 29, 2017, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that the claims against defendant Brooks be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to 22 respond to the court’s order to show cause as to why defendant Brooks should not be dismissed 23 from this action. (Doc. No. 90.) Then, on October 27, 2017, the magistrate judge issued findings 24 and recommendations recommending that the Doe defendants be dismissed from this action, due 25 to plaintiff’s failure to respond to the court’s order to show cause as to why the Doe defendants 26 should not be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to identify them for purposes of service of 27 process. (Doc. No. 92.) The parties were permitted fourteen days in which to file objections to 28 each of the findings and recommendations. The fourteen-day deadlines have expired, and no 1 1 objections to either finding and recommendation have been filed. 2 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 3 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 4 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 5 6 7 8 9 Accordingly, the court hereby orders that: 1. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on September 29, 2017 (Doc. No. 90), are adopted in full; 2. The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on October 27, 2017 (Doc. No. 92), are adopted in full; 10 3. Defendant M. Brooks is dismissed from this action; 11 4. The Doe defendants are dismissed from this action; 12 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to reflect the dismissal of those defendants from this action 13 14 15 16 on the court’s docket; and 6. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 2, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?