(PC) Nguyen v. California Prison Health Service, et al., No. 2:2013cv00963 - Document 40 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 1/20/2016 ADOPTING IN FULL the 12/2/2015 Findings and Recommendations 33 . Plaintiff's 25 motion for substitution of parties is DENIED; and defendant Andreasen is DISMISSED from this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). (Yin, K)

Download PDF
(PC) Nguyen v. California Prison Health Service, et al. Doc. 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NAM BA NGUYEN, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:13-cv-963-MCE-EFB (P) Plaintiff, v. ORDER CALIFORNIA PRISON HEALTH SERVICE, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief 19 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 20 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On December 2, 2015, the magistrate judge filed Findings and Recommendations herein 22 (ECF No. 33) which were served on all parties and which contained notice that any objections to 23 the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed 24 objections to the Findings and Recommendations. 25 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the 26 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 27 file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by 28 proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed December 2, 2015 (ECF No. 33) are 3 ADOPTED IN FULL; 4 2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Substitution of Parties (ECF No. 25) is DENIED; and 5 3. Defendant Andreasen is DISMISSED from this action pursuant to Federal Rule of 6 7 8 Civil Procedure 4(m). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 20, 2016 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 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.