Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00208/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00208-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD JOSEPH CRANE,

Plaintiff,

v.

RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-0208 TLN KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 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.

On October 20, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 

which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the 

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff 

filed untimely objections to the findings and recommendations on November 30, 2106. (ECF No. 

35.) Despite the untimely filing, in the interest of justice the Court has reviewed and considered 

Plaintiff’s objections.

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 by proper 

Case 2:15-cv-00208-TLN-CSK Document 38 Filed 12/08/15 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

analysis, with the one exception noted below.

Plaintiff states that he objects to the dismissal of Defendants Peck and Hurd with 

prejudice “to avoid a res judicata judgment, as he desires to sue [Defendants Peck and Hurd] in a 

separate lawsuit.” (ECF No. 35 at 1.) Plaintiff did not seek injunctive relief in the operative 

pleading. (ECF No. 16.) Thus, the Court will dismiss these Defendants without prejudice.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed October 20, 2015 (ECF No. 26), are adopted 

in part, and amended only with respect to the type of dismissal of Defendants Peck and Hurd; and

2. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Peck and Hurd are dismissed without prejudice.

Dated: December 4, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-00208-TLN-CSK Document 38 Filed 12/08/15 Page 2 of 2