Gipbsin v. Kernan, et al

Filing 250

ORDER ADOPTING 241 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 01/29/19 DISMISSING defendant Neal without prejudice under Rule 4(m); this matter is REFERRED back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings. (Benson, A.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLARENCE A. GIPBSIN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. No. 2:12-cv-0556 KJM DB P ORDER SCOTT KERNAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 17 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 19 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On December 14, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 20 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 241.) Plaintiff 23 has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 245.) 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 25 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court finds the 26 findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed December 14, 2018, are adopted in full; 3 2. Defendant Neal is dismissed from this action without prejudice under Rule 4(m); and 4 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial 5 proceedings. 6 DATED: January 29, 2019. 7 8 UNITED STATES 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?