(PC) Sosa v. CSATF Warden

District Court, E.D. California·Decided March 27, 2023·No. 1:19-cv-01333·Unknown

Opinion

JORGE LUIS SOSA, No. 1:19-cv-1333 JLT EPG (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING v. DOES 1-3 AS DEFENDANTS R. HULSE, et al., (Docs. 82 & 94) Defendants. Jorge Luis Sosa is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges defendants Hulse and Does 1-3 subjected him to excessive force and sexual assault in violation of the Eighth Amendment and that they retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment. (Doc. 20.) The magistrate judge found Plaintiff “failed to provide the Court and the Marshal with accurate and sufficient information to effect service of the summons and complaint on Does 1-3 within the time period prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).” (Doc. 94 at 3.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Doe Defendants be dismissed from the action without prejudice, and the action proceed with the claims against Hulse only. (Id.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on all parties and advised them that any objections thereto were due within fourteen days. (Doc. 94 at 3.) In addition, the Court advised the parties that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d. at 3-4, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) To date, no objections have been filed and the deadline to do so has passed. According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on February 24, 2023 (Doc. 94), are ADOPTED in full. 2. Defendants Does 1-3 are dismissed from this action, without prejudice. 3. This case SHALL proceed against defendant Hulse only. b IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _Mareh 27, 2023 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(PC) Sosa v. CSATF Warden, (E.D. Cal. 2023).

(PC) Sosa v. CSATF Warden ((PC) Sosa v. CSATF Warden) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related