Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01674/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01674-9/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

SCOTT HERD,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES D. HARTLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:12-cv-01674-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS DISMISSING 

DEFENDANTS BRYANT, CATES, AND 

HARTLEY FOR FAILURE TO EFFECT 

SERVICE, WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Doc. No. 43)

Plaintiff Scott Herd is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and pro se in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 9.) The matter was referred to a United 

States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On March 2, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that named defendants Bryant, Cates, and Hartley be dismissed from this action, 

without prejudice, due to plaintiff’s failure to effect service of process pursuant to Rule 4 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 43.) The findings and recommendation was served 

on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within twenty days. On 

March 17, 2016, plaintiff filed a notice stating he does not oppose the dismissal of defendants 

Bryant, Cates, or Hartley because he intends to proceed only against defendants Garcia and Flores 

in this action. (Doc. No. 44.)

Case 1:12-cv-01674-DAD-BAM Document 46 Filed 03/25/16 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s notice, 

the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 

analysis.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing:

1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 43), filed on March 2, 2016, are adopted in 

full; 

2. Defendants Bryant, Cates, and Hartley are dismissed without prejudice from this action, 

due to plaintiff’s failure to effect service pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure; and

3. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s first amended complaint against only defendants 

A. Garcia and Flores.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01674-DAD-BAM Document 46 Filed 03/25/16 Page 2 of 2