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.)
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?