-GBC (PC) Poe v. Huckabay et al, No. 1:2007cv00413 - Document 100 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Dismissing Defendant Galvan From Action 93 , signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/6/12: Defendant Galvan is DISMISSED from the action. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
-GBC (PC) Poe v. Huckabay et al Doc. 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DAVID POE, 11 12 CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00413-AWI-GBC (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION DISMISSING DEFENDANT GALVAN FROM ACTION v. 13 SGT. HUCKABAY, et al., 14 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 93) / 16 17 18 19 ORDER Plaintiff David Poe (“Plaintiff”), an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 20 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 21 22 This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, filed November 30, 23 2009, against fourteen defendants. (ECF No. 1.) Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma 24 pauperis, the Court appointed the United States Marshal to serve each Defendant with a 25 summons and Complaint. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(c)(2). The summons for Defendant Galvan 26 was returned to the Court unexecuted. (ECF No. 47.) The Court then ordered that Plaintiff 27 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 provide additional information to assist the Marshal in effectuating service. (ECF No. 65.) Plaintiff did so, and service was attempted again. (ECF Nos. 67 & 70.) However, the Marshal was unable to effectuate service on Defendant Galvan again. (ECF No. 77.) 4 5 6 7 Thus, because Plaintiff was unable to provide sufficient information for service, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of Defendant Galvan from the action. (ECF No. 93.) No objections to the Findings and Recommendation were filed. 8 The matter was referred to a United State Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 9 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On September 2, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a 10 Findings and Recommendation recommending that Defendant Galvan be dismissed from 11 12 13 14 the action for failure to serve. (ECF No. 93.) The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff had failed to fulfill his burden of providing the Marshal’s service with sufficient information to serve a defendant. (Id.) 15 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has 16 conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 17 Court finds the Findings and Recommendation to be supported by the record and by 18 proper analysis. 19 20 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. 22 23 24 The Findings and Recommendation, filed September 2, 2011, is ADOPTED; and 2. Defendant Galvan is DISMISSED from the action. IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: 0m8i78 January 6, 2012 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.