(PC)Michael J. Coe v. James A. Yates, No. 1:2007cv00683 - Document 49 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting 38 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DISMISSING Defendants Defrance and Voss from Action Without Prejudice signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/7/2009. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC)Michael J. Coe v. James A. Yates Doc. 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 MICHAEL J. COE, 13 CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00683-AWI-DLB PC Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING DEFENDANTS DEFRANCE AND VOSS FROM ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE J. YATES, et al., (Docs. 38, 44) 16 Defendants. 17 / 18 19 Plaintiff Michael J. Coe (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 20 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a 21 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 22 On August 21, 2009, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations that 23 recommended Defendants Voss and Defrance be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal 24 Rules of Procedure. The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained 25 notice to Plaintiff that any objection to the Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within 26 thirty days. Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Findings and Recommendations on October 7, 27 2009. 28 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the 2 Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. In the 3 objections, Petitioner contends that because he is a incarcerated, he should not be required to 4 provide any further information about Defendants other than the fact they are employed by the 5 CDCR. A pro se prisoner plaintiff is entitled to rely upon the United States Marshals Service to 6 effect proper service. See Pruett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir.1990). However, it is 7 Plaintiff's responsibility to provide the Marshals Service with information necessary to identify 8 each defendant to be served. Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir.1994), abrogated 9 on other grounds, Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995); Caballero v. Gonzalez, 2009 WL 10 3876293, at *3 (C.D.Cal. 2009); Brush v. Harper, 2009 WL 256380, at *1 (E.D.Cal. 2009), 11 adopted by 2009 WL 902265 (E.D.Cal. 2009); Schrubb v. Tilton, 2009 WL 113022, at *2 12 (N.D.Cal. 2009). Thus, the objections offer no reason to not adopt the Findings and 13 Recommendations. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. 16 17 The Findings and Recommendations, filed August 21, 2009, is adopted in full; and 2. Defendants Voss and Defrance are dismissed from this action without prejudice 18 for Plaintiff’s failure to provide information sufficient for the United States 19 Marshal to effect service of process. 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: 0m8i78 December 7, 2009 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 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.
