From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rood v. Win

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Dec 22, 2021
2:13-CV-0478-JAM-DMC-P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2021)

Opinion

2:13-CV-0478-JAM-DMC-P

12-22-2021

RICHARD V. ROOD, Plaintiff, v. WIN, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules.

On October 29, 2021, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within the time specified therein. No. objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed.

The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and the Magistrate Judge's analysis. / / / / / / / / /

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed October 29, 2021, are adopted in full;

2. Moving Defendants' motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 77, is granted;

3. Judgement is entered as a matter of law in favor of Defendants Tan, Fontillas, Hardman, Win, and Braunger (“Carlson”);

4. Non-moving Defendants Hannies, Kiesz, and Herhst are dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to effect timely service of process; and

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file.


Summaries of

Rood v. Win

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Dec 22, 2021
2:13-CV-0478-JAM-DMC-P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2021)
Case details for

Rood v. Win

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD V. ROOD, Plaintiff, v. WIN, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Dec 22, 2021

Citations

2:13-CV-0478-JAM-DMC-P (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2021)