Opinion
1:19-cv-00653-AWI-EPG (PC)
04-07-2023
ALLEN HAMMLER, Plaintiff, v. GOOCH, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(ECF NOS. 73, 80, & 92)
ORDER DISMISSING JOHN DOE FROM ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Allen Hammler (“Plaintiff') is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
This case is proceeding on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference to a serious risk of harm against defendants John Doe and Salcedo and his Eighth Amendment medical indifference claims against defendants Salcedo, Gooch, and Burnes. (ECF Nos. 14 & 23).
On March 2, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations, recommending “that defendant John Doe be dismissed from this action, without prejudice, because of Plaintiff's failure to provide the Court and the Marshal with accurate and sufficient information to effect service of the summons and complaint on defendant John Doe within the time period prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).” (ECF No. 92, p. 3).
The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations. The deadline to file objections has passed and no objections have been filed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on March 2, 2023, (ECF No. 92), are adopted in full; and
2. Defendant John Doe is dismissed from this action, without prejudice, because of Plaintiff's failure to provide the Court and the Marshal with accurate and sufficient information to effect service of the summons and complaint on defendant John Doe within the time period prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
This case continues to proceed against defendants Salcedo, Gooch, and Burnes.
IT IS SO ORDERED.