(PC) Maxwell v. Mitchell et al, No. 2:2015cv00015 - Document 72 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 4/26/2021 ADOPTING 71 Findings and Recommendations in full; DISMISSING defendants Porter and Trostle pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to effect timely service of process; and GRANTING 61 Motion for Summary Judgment. CASE CLOSED. (Coll, A)

Download PDF
(PC) Maxwell v. Mitchell et al Doc. 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY PAUL MAXWELL, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:15-CV-0015-JAM-DMC-P v. ORDER RYON MITCHELL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 17 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 Eastern District of California local rules. On March 22, 2021, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 20 21 herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file 22 objections within the time specified therein. No objections to the findings and recommendations 23 have been filed. The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 24 25 supported by the record and the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed March 22, 2021, are adopted in 2. Defendants Porter and Trostle are dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of 3 full; 4 5 Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to effect timely service of process 6 7 8 3. The remaining defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 61, is 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file. granted; and 9 10 11 12 DATED: April 26, 2021 /s/ John A. Mendez THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 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.