Thompson v. Gomez et al

Filing 61

ORDER ADOPTING 59 Findings and Recommendations, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/24/2020. (Marrujo, C)

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-NONE-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION
(Doc. Nos. 58, 59)

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. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

19

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On January 27, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

20
21

recommending that plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to substitute the identity of doe

22

defendant number 1 as D. Johnson be granted, and doe defendant number 2 be dismissed, without

23

prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (Doc. No. 59.) The findings and

24

recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that objections were due within

25

fourteen (14) days. (Id.) No objections were filed and the time to do so has now expired.

26

///

27

///

28
1

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this court

2

has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds

3

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

4

Accordingly,

5

1.

and

6
7

2.

3.

4.

Defendant doe number 2 is dismissed from the action, without prejudice, for failure to
identify and effectuate service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m); and

12
13

Defendant D. Johnson is substituted in place of doe defendant number 1 as identified in
the complaint (Doc. No. 1);

10
11

Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to substitute the identity of doe defendant
number 1 as D. Johnson is granted;

8
9

The January 27, 2020 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 59) are adopted in full;

5.

The matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for initiation of service of process
on defendant D. Johnson.

14
15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 24, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2