(PC) Hammler v. Gooch et al, No. 1:2019cv00653 - Document 97 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 92 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER Dismissing John Doe from Action, without Prejudice signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 04/07/2023.(Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALLEN HAMMLER, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 GOOCH, et al., No. 1:19-cv-00653-AWI-EPG (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF Nos. 73, 80, & 92) 15 Defendants. ORDER DISMISSING JOHN DOE FROM ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 16 17 Allen Hammler (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 19 States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 This case is proceeding on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate 21 indifference to a serious risk of harm against defendants John Doe and Salcedo and his Eighth 22 Amendment medical indifference claims against defendants Salcedo, Gooch, and Burnes. (ECF 23 Nos. 14 & 23). 24 On March 2, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations, 25 recommending “that defendant John Doe be dismissed from this action, without prejudice, 26 because of Plaintiff’s failure to provide the Court and the Marshal with accurate and sufficient 27 information to effect service of the summons and complaint on defendant John Doe within the 28 time period prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).” (ECF No. 92, p. 3). 1 1 2 3 The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations. The deadline to file objections has passed and no objections have been filed. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 4 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 5 Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 6 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 7 1. 8 9 The findings and recommendations issued on March 2, 2023, (ECF No. 92), are adopted in full; and 2. Defendant John Doe is dismissed from this action, without prejudice, because of 10 Plaintiff’s failure to provide the Court and the Marshal with accurate and sufficient 11 information to effect service of the summons and complaint on defendant John 12 Doe within the time period prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).1 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 7, 2023 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 This case continues to proceed against defendants Salcedo, Gooch, and Burnes. 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.
