(PC) Lewis et al v. Gardiner, et al, No. 2:2012cv00986 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 10 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 8/28/12: The request for permissive joinder of plaintiffs and for class certification is denied. Plaintiffs Ken A Marchesin and Robert Mistriel dismissed. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
(PC) Lewis et al v. Gardiner, et al Doc. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DAVID K. LEWIS, et al., 11 Plaintiffs, 12 13 No. 2:12-cv-0986 JAM EFB P vs. GARDINER, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 ORDER / 16 Plaintiff David Lewis, Ken Marchesin, and Robert Mistriel, state prisoners 17 proceeding pro se, have filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The 18 matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 19 Local Rule 302. 20 On June 19, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 21 herein which were served on the plaintiffs and which contained notice to the plaintiffs that any 22 objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. No 23 objections have been filed.1 24 //// 25 1 26 The file reflects that plaintiff Lewis’s copy of the findings and recommendations were returned by the Postal Service marked “Undeliverable, Deceased.” 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 2 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 3 ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 19, 2012, are adopted in full; 5 2. The request for permissive joinder of plaintiffs and for class certification is 6 7 8 9 10 denied; and 3. Plaintiffs Ken Marchesin and Robert Mistriel are dismissed from this action. DATED: August 28, 2012 /s/ John A. Mendez UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 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.