UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 3, 2012
MELVIN RAY BRUMMETT, JR.,
ROBERT SILLEN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING DEFENDANT DOE 1 WITHOUT PREJUDICE (DOC. 55) ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT DOE 1 AS MOOT (DOC. 57)
Plaintiff Melvin Ray Brummett, Jr., ("Plaintiff") is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's amended complaint, filed September 2, 2009, against Defendants S. Kaur and Doe 1. Plaintiff did not submit sufficient information for the United States Marshal to effect service of process on Defendant Doe 1. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On December 13, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objection to the Findings and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. Doc. 55. On December 29, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss Defendant Doe 1 without prejudice. Doc. 57. The Court construes the motion as Plaintiff declining to object to the Findings and Recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), 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 by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed December 13, 2011, is adopted in full;
2. Defendant Doe 1 is dismissed without prejudice for failure to effect service of process pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and
3. Plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss Defendant Doe 1, filed December 29, 2011, is disregarded as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.