Jones v. Arnette, et al.

Filing 131

ORDER ADOPTING 122 Findings and Recommendations in Full; ORDER DISMISSING Defendants Vasquez and Lopez from this Case Based on Plaintiff's Failure to Effect Service, signed by District Judge Ana de Alba on 9/6/2022. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for all further proceedings, including the issuance of a new scheduling order. (Rivera, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEREMY JONES,

12
13
14

1:16-cv-01212-ADA-GSA-PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL

vs.
(Doc. No. 122.)
ARNETTE, et al.,

16

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANTS
VASQUEZ AND LOPEZ FROM THIS CASE
BASED ON PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO
EFFECT SERVICE

17

(Doc. No. 69.)

15

Defendants.

18
19
20

Plaintiff Jeremy Jones (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

21

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with

22

Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132. The matter was referred to a United States

23

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

24

On February 1, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

25

recommendations, recommending that Defendants Vasquez and Lopez be dismissed without

26

prejudice from this case pursuant to Rule 4(m), based on Plaintiff’s failure to effect service.

27

(Doc. No. 122.)

28

recommendations. (Doc. No. 123.)

On February 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and

1

1

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

2

a de novo review of the case, including Plaintiff’s objections. Having carefully reviewed the

3

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and

4

by proper analysis.

5

Accordingly,

6

1.

7
8

2022, are adopted in full;
2.

3.

11
12

Defendants Vasquez and Lopez are dismissed from this case without prejudice
pursuant to Rule 4(m), based on Plaintiff’s failure to effect service;

9
10

The findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on February 1,

The Clerk is directed to reflect on the docket that Defendants Vasquez and Lopez
are dismissed from this case;

4.

This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s ADA claims against Defendants Keener,

13

Gonzalez, Flores, Arnett,1 and Zamora; Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims

14

against Defendants Keener and Gonzalez; and Plaintiff’s due process claims

15

against Defendants Keener and Gonzalez; and

16

5.

17

This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for all further proceedings,
including the issuance of a new scheduling order.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 6, 2022
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1

Sued as Arnette.
2