(PC) Embrey v. McComas et al, No. 1:2020cv00650 - Document 18 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 17 Findings and Recommendations in Full and Dismissing Action, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 05/03/2021. CASE CLOSED. (Maldonado, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JORDAN LEE EMBREY, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 1:20-cv-00650-DAD-BAM (PC) v. MCCOMAS, et al., 15 Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL AND DISMISSING ACTION (Doc. No. 17) 16 17 Plaintiff Jordan Lee Embrey is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se in this civil rights 18 19 action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 10.) This action proceeds on plaintiff’s first amended 20 complaint against defendants Obendena and Z. Williams for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s 21 serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Id.) This matter was referred to a 22 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On March 15, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 24 recommending that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to serve 25 process on defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), failure to prosecute, and 26 failure to obey a court order. (Doc. No. 17.) Those findings and recommendations were served 27 on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) 28 ///// 1 1 days after service. (Id. at 4.) No objections have been filed, and the deadline to do so has 2 expired. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 4 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 5 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper 6 analysis. 7 Accordingly, 8 1. 9 10 The findings and recommendations issued on March 15, 2021 (Doc. No. 17) are adopted in full; 2. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to serve 11 process on defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), failure to 12 prosecute, and failure to obey a court order; and 13 14 15 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 3, 2021 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.
