From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hamilton v. Hart

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 10, 2017
No. 1:10-cv-00272-DAD-EPG (E.D. Cal. May. 10, 2017)

Opinion

No. 1:10-cv-00272-DAD-EPG

05-10-2017

DENNIS L. HAMILTON, Plaintiff, v. JOHN HART, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING DOE DEFENDANT

(Doc. No. 107)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1.) On January 19, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that defendant Doe Lieutenant be dismissed from this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 107.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff with instructions that any objections thereto must be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff did not file any objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, defendant Doe Lieutenant is dismissed from the case without prejudice. ///// ///// The case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings with respect to the named defendants. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10 , 2017

/s/_________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Hamilton v. Hart

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 10, 2017
No. 1:10-cv-00272-DAD-EPG (E.D. Cal. May. 10, 2017)
Case details for

Hamilton v. Hart

Case Details

Full title:DENNIS L. HAMILTON, Plaintiff, v. JOHN HART, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: May 10, 2017

Citations

No. 1:10-cv-00272-DAD-EPG (E.D. Cal. May. 10, 2017)