(PC) Colvin v. Cullen, et al., No. 1:2017cv01489 - Document 28 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 20 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, and Dismissing Defendants Garcia and Lopez for Failure to Provide Sufficient Information to Identify for Service of Process signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 01/23/2019. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 ROBERT M. COLVIN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 vs. 14 SANCHEZ, et al., 15 16 17 Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No.: 1:17-cv-01489-LJO-BAM (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DISMISSING DEFENDANTS GARCIA AND LOPEZ FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO IDENTIFY FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS (Doc. No. 20) 18 Plaintiff Robert M. Colvin is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 19 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s complaint 20 for excessive force against Defendants Cullen, Mesa, Lopez, Garcia, Ibarra and Waddel, and for 21 deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against Defendants Garcia, Martinez and Smith, 22 both in violation of the Eighth Amendment. This matter was referred to a United States 23 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 24 On October 24, 2017, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and 25 recommendations recommending Defendants Garcia and Lopez be dismissed, without prejudice, 26 under Rule 4(m) for failure to effectuate service of process. (Doc. No. 20.) The Findings and 27 Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections must be 28 filed within fourteen days after service of that order. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff’s deadline for 1 1 objections was extended twice, on November 14, 2018, (Doc. No. 25), and on December 5, 2 2018, (Doc. No. 27). The extended deadline has now passed, and no objections have been filed. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 4 a de novo review of this case and carefully reviewed the entire file. The Court finds that the 5 Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. 6 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. Defendants Garcia and Lopez are dismissed from this action, without prejudice, 8 for Plaintiff’s failure to serve them pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9 4(m); and 10 2. This matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. 11 12 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ January 23, 2019 UNITED STATES CHIEF 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.