Shabazz v. Beard, et al.

Filing 72

ORDER Adopting 64 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS that Defendant Brazelton be DISMISSED signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/24/2018. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AMIR SHABAZZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:15-cv-00881-DAD-EPG

v.
JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al.,

15

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT DEFENDANT
BRAZELTON BE DISMISSED
(Doc. No. 64)

16
17

Plaintiff Amir Shabazz is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

18

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action now proceeds on plaintiff’s Second

19

Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 26.) The matter was referred to the assigned magistrate judge

20

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On March 9, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

21
22

that defendant Paul D. Brazelton be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rules 4(m) and 25(a)

23

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 64.) Defendant Brazelton passed away on

24

November 11, 2016. (Id. at 1.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties

25

with instructions that any objections must be filed within twenty-one days. (Id. at 4.) The

26

twenty-one day period has expired, and the parties have not filed any objections to the pending

27

findings and recommendations.

28

/////
1

1

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

2

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court holds the findings

3

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

4

Accordingly,

5

1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 9, 2018, (Doc. No. 64), are

6

adopted in full;

7

2. Defendant Paul D. Brazelton is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rules

8

4(m) and 25(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and

9

3. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further

10
11
12
13

proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 24, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2