(PC) Shabazz v. Beard, et al., No. 1:2015cv00881 - Document 72 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 64 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS that Defendant Brazelton be DISMISSED signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/24/2018. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AMIR SHABAZZ, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:15-cv-00881-DAD-EPG v. JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al., 15 Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT DEFENDANT BRAZELTON BE DISMISSED (Doc. No. 64) 16 17 Plaintiff Amir Shabazz is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action now proceeds on plaintiff’s Second 19 Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 26.) The matter was referred to the assigned magistrate judge 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On March 9, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 22 that defendant Paul D. Brazelton be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rules 4(m) and 25(a) 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 64.) Defendant Brazelton passed away on 24 November 11, 2016. (Id. at 1.) The findings and recommendations were served on the parties 25 with instructions that any objections must be filed within twenty-one days. (Id. at 4.) The 26 twenty-one day period has expired, and the parties have not filed any objections to the pending 27 findings and recommendations. 28 ///// 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 2 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court holds the findings 3 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, 5 1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 9, 2018, (Doc. No. 64), are 6 adopted in full; 7 2. Defendant Paul D. Brazelton is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rules 8 4(m) and 25(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and 9 3. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 10 11 12 13 proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 24, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2