(PC) Knapp v. Hickman et al, No. 2:2005cv02520 - Document 204 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 12/8/09 ORDERING the findings and recommendations filed October 13, 2009, are adopted in full; the August 19, 2009 order to show cause is discharged; Defendants Gunning, Marshall, Murray and Warvarovski a re dismissed as defendants to this action for failure to effect timely service; Claims 1g and 8f are dismissed as failing to name any defendant remaining in this action; and this action shall proceed against the remaining defendants, as identified in the court's September 17, 2009, order.(Becknal, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Knapp v. Hickman et al Doc. 204 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC CHARLES RODNEY KNAPP, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 vs. No. CIV S-05-2520-FCD-CMK-P ORDER RODERICK HICKMAN, et al., Defendants. 15 / 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 Eastern District of California local rules. 20 On October 13, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 21 herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file 22 objections within a specified time. Timely objections to the findings and recommendations have 23 been filed. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72- 25 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 26 entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 by proper analysis. Plaintiff objects to the dismissal of defendant Warvarovski due to the United 2 States Marshal’s failure to effect service. He argues that the Marshal should have personally 3 served defendant Warvarovski when the waiver of service was not timely returned, and that he 4 provided sufficient information for the US Marshal to do so. However, the service information 5 Plaintiff provided was a Post Office Box in Sutter Creek, California. As the Marshal has 6 indicated, personal service is not possible on a Post Office Box. It is Plaintiff’s obligation to 7 provide an address sufficient for service, which he has not done. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 8 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 9 (1995). 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 13, 2009, are adopted in 13 2. The August 19, 2009 order to show cause is discharged; 14 3. Defendants Gunning, Marshall, Murray and Warvarovski are dismissed as 12 15 16 17 18 full; defendants to this action for failure to effect timely service; 4. Claims 1g and 8f are dismissed as failing to name any defendant remaining in this action; and 5. This action shall proceed against the remaining defendants, as identified in 19 the court’s September 17, 2009, order. 20 DATED: December 8, 2009. 21 22 23 _______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 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.
