(PC) Roberson v. T. et al

Filing 84

ORDER ADOPTING 83 Findings and Recommendations signed by District Judge Ana de Alba on 01/13/2023. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)

Case 1:19-cv-01724-ADA-EPG Document 84 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CLARENCE LONELL ROBERSON,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,

No. 1:19-cv-01724-ADA-EPG (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

v.
(ECF Nos. 73 & 83)
L.T., et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Clarence Lonnell Roberson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to

19

a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On November 18, 2022, the assigned Magistrate Judge entered findings and

21

recommendations, recommending that “[t]he Doe Defendants be dismissed from this action,

22

without prejudice, because of Plaintiff’s failure to provide the Court and the Marshal with

23

accurate and sufficient information to effect service of the summons and complaint on the Doe

24

Defendants within the time period prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m),” and that

25

“[t]he Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.” (ECF No. 83 at 3-4).

26

Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and

27

recommendations. The deadline for filing objections has passed and Plaintiff has not filed

28

objections or otherwise responded to the findings and recommendations.
1

Case 1:19-cv-01724-ADA-EPG Document 84 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 2
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 this 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

The findings and recommendations issued on November 18, 2022, (ECF No. 83),
are adopted in full;

2.

The Doe Defendants are dismissed from this action, without prejudice, because of

8

Plaintiff’s failure to provide the Court and the Marshal with accurate and sufficient

9

information to effect service of the summons and complaint on the Doe

10

Defendants within the time period prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

11

4(m); and

12

3.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 13, 2023
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2