Jacobsen v. Maldinado

Filing 33

ORDER Adopting 24 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DISMISSING Doe Defendants, without Prejudice signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/10/2018. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

MICHAEL JACOBSEN,

11
12
13

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:17-cv-00101-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

v.
MALDINADO, et al.,

14

Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING DOE DEFENDANTS,
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(ECF No. 24)

15
16
17
18

Plaintiff Michael Jacobsen is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On November 30, 2017, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and

19

recommendations finding that Plaintiff had failed to name the Doe Defendants and initiate service

20

of process against them within the time required pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

21

4(m). Thus, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of all Doe Defendants from this action,

22

without prejudice. (ECF No. 24.) Those findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff

23

and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after

24

service. (Id. at 3–4.) More than fourteen days have passed, and no objections have been filed.

25

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

26

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that

27

the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper

28

analysis.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

3
4

are adopted in full;
2.

5
6

9

Doe Defendants #1, #2, and #3 are dismissed from this action, without prejudice,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m);

3.

7
8

The findings and recommendations issued on November 30, 2017, (ECF No. 24)

This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s claim for excessive force in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment against Officer Maldonado; and

4.

The matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further
proceedings consistent with this order.

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 10, 2018
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2