Thompson v. Gomez et al

Filing 38

ORDER Adopting 35 Findings and Recommendation, and Dismissing Defendant Rodriguez, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/18/19. Rodriguez terminated. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARK SHANE THOMPSON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. A. GOMEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Case No.: 1:18-cv-00125-LJO-SAB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, AND DISMISSING DEFENDANT RODRIGUEZ PURSUANT TO RULE 4(M) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE [ECF No. 35] Plaintiff Mark Shane Thompson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On December 19, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation 20 recommending that Defendant Rodriguez be dismissed from the action, without prejudice, pursuant to 21 Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Findings and Recommendation was served on 22 Plaintiff and contained notice that objections were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections 23 were filed and the time to do so has expired. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 25 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 26 Recommendation to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 27 /// 28 /// 1 1 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The December 19, 2018, Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 35) is adopted; and 3 2. Defendant Rodriguez is dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the 4 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 5 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ January 18, 2019 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 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?