(PC) Sosa v. CSATF Warden ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JORGE LUIS SOSA, No. 1:19-cv-1333 JLT EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 13 v. DOES 1-3 AS DEFENDANTS 14 R. HULSE, et al., (Docs. 82 & 94) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Jorge Luis Sosa is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges defendants Hulse and Does 1-3 19 subjected him to excessive force and sexual assault in violation of the Eighth Amendment and 20 that they retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment. (Doc. 20.) 21 The magistrate judge found Plaintiff “failed to provide the Court and the Marshal with 22 accurate and sufficient information to effect service of the summons and complaint on Does 1-3 23 within the time period prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).” (Doc. 94 at 3.) 24 Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Doe Defendants be dismissed from the action 25 without prejudice, and the action proceed with the claims against Hulse only. (Id.) 26 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on all parties and advised them that 27 any objections thereto were due within fourteen days. (Doc. 94 at 3.) In addition, the Court 28 advised the parties that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the 1 | waiver of rights on appeal.” (/d. at 3-4, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th 2 | Cir. 2014); Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).) To date, no objections have 3 | been filed and the deadline to do so has passed. 4 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this Court conducted a de 5 | novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court finds the Findings and 6 | Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 7 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on February 24, 2023 (Doc. 94), are 8 ADOPTED in full. 9 2. Defendants Does 1-3 are dismissed from this action, without prejudice. 10 3. This case SHALL proceed against defendant Hulse only. 11 b IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 | Dated: _Mareh 27, 2023 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28