White v. Smyers et al

Filing 32

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 3/3/2014 ORDERING that the 24 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED IN FULL. Service is appropriate for Defendants Miranda, Mayes, Schmidt, Lee, Pomazal, Rofling, Lankford and Swingle. All other Defendants and claims are DISMISSED from this action. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff 8 (eight) USM-285 forms, one summons, an instruction sheet and a copy of the 23 First Amended Complaint filed 7/15/2013. Within thirty days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall complete the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the service documents to the Court. (Zignago, K.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WALTER HOWARD WHITE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:12-cv-2868 MCE AC P v. ORDER D. SMYERS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On August 28, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein, 20 21 ECF No. 24, which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any 22 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Based on 23 good cause shown, Plaintiff’s objections filed on January 23, 2014 are deemed timely filed. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 24 25 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 26 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 27 analysis. 28 ///// 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations, ECF No. 24, filed August 28, 2013, are 3 4 5 6 ADOPTED IN FULL; 2. Service is appropriate for Defendants Miranda, Mayes, Schmidt, Lee, Pomazal, Rofling, Lankford and Swingle; 3. This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint filed July 15, 2013, ECF 7 No. 23, on Plaintiff’s claims for violations of the Eighth Amendment by each Defendant named in 8 (2) above, and on a claim under the ADA against Defendant Swingle in his official capacity. 9 10 11 12 13 4. All other Defendants and claims are DISMISSED from this action. 5. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff 8 (eight) USM-285 forms, one summons, an instruction sheet and a copy of the First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 23, filed July 15, 2013. 3. Within thirty days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall complete the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the Court: 14 a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents; 15 b. One completed summons; 16 c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 2 above; and 17 d. 9 (nine) copies of the endorsed amended Complaint filed July 15, 2013. 18 4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on Defendants and need not request waiver of 19 service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States 20 Marshal to serve the above-named Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 21 without payment of costs. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 3, 2014 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 WALTER HOWARD WHITE, 5 No. 2:12-cv-2868-MCE AC P Plaintiff, 6 v. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS 7 D. SMYER, et al., 8 Defendant. 9 10 11 Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order filed _____________________ : 12 ____ completed summons form 13 ____ completed USM-285 forms 14 ____ copies of the ___________________ Amended Complaint 15 16 17 18 19 20 DATED: ________________________________ Plaintiff 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?