-CMK (PC) Jones v. Stieferman et al, No. 2:2006cv02732 - Document 118 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 7/18/11 ADOPTING 113 Findings and Recommendations in full; granting 104 and 107 Motions to Dismiss. Defendants Goldman and Sherven are DISMISSED from this action withprejudice; the remaining defendants are DISMISSED from this action, without prejudice, for plaintiffs failure to serve them in a timely fashion. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment. CASE CLOSED. (Meuleman, A) Modified on 7/19/2011 (Meuleman, A).

Download PDF
-CMK (PC) Jones v. Stieferman et al Doc. 118 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MALIK JONES, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 15 16 No. CIV S-06-2732 KJM CMK P vs. C. STIEFERMAN, et al., Defendants. ORDER / Plaintiff, with counsel, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 17 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 18 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262. 19 On February 28, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 20 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 21 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Plaintiff has filed 22 objections to the findings and recommendations and has submitted additional materials, 23 including counsel’s declaration, which were not before the magistrate judge. Although this court 24 has the discretion to ignore these additional materials, it has considered them in conducting its de 25 novo review of the findings and recommendations in accordance with the provisions of 28 26 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 28, 2011, are adopted 2. The motions to dismiss filed by defendants Goldman and Sherven (ECF 5 in full; 6 7 Nos. 104, 107) are granted; 8 9 3. 4. The remaining defendants are dismissed from this action, without prejudice; 10 11 Defendants Goldman and Sherven are dismissed from this action with prejudice, for plaintiff’s failure to serve them in a timely fashion; 12 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment; and 13 6. This case is CLOSED. 14 DATED: July 18, 2011. 15 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 /jones06cv2732 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.