Martinez v. Three Unknown Guards of CDCR, et al.
Filing
60
ORDER ADOPTING 53 Findings and Recommendations signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/10/2019. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ANTONIO MARTINEZ,
12
No. 1:16-cv-01467-DAD-BAM (PC)
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
F. ROJAS, et al.,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. No. 53)
15
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff Antonio Martinez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
18
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States
19
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On September 13, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and
20
21
recommendation recommending that defendant Officer Doe # 3 be dismissed, without prejudice,
22
due to plaintiff’s failure to name the doe defendant and initiate service of process as to that
23
defendant within the time required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (Doc. No. 53.) The
24
findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections
25
thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 3-4.) No objections have
26
been filed and the time in which to do so has passed.
27
///
28
///
1
1
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
2
court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
3
court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
4
Accordingly,
5
1.
6
7
are adopted in full;
2.
8
9
3.
14
15
This action shall proceed against defendant Rojas for deliberate indifference in
violation of the Eighth Amendment; and
4.
12
13
Defendant Officer Doe # 3 is dismissed from this action, without prejudice,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m);
10
11
The findings and recommendations issued on September 13, 2019 (Doc. No. 53)
The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further
proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
December 10, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16
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?