(PC) Martinez v. Rojas, et al., No. 1:2016cv01467 - Document 60 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 53 Findings and Recommendations signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/10/2019. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTONIO MARTINEZ, 12 No. 1:16-cv-01467-DAD-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 F. ROJAS, et al., ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. No. 53) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Antonio Martinez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On September 13, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 20 21 recommendation recommending that defendant Officer Doe # 3 be dismissed, without prejudice, 22 due to plaintiff’s failure to name the doe defendant and initiate service of process as to that 23 defendant within the time required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (Doc. No. 53.) The 24 findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections 25 thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 3-4.) No objections have 26 been filed and the time in which to do so has passed. 27 /// 28 /// 1 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 2 court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 3 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, 5 1. 6 7 are adopted in full; 2. 8 9 3. 14 15 This action shall proceed against defendant Rojas for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and 4. 12 13 Defendant Officer Doe # 3 is dismissed from this action, without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m); 10 11 The findings and recommendations issued on September 13, 2019 (Doc. No. 53) The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 10, 2019 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 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.
