Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00817/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00817-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL JORGENSON,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:17-cv-00817-LJO-EPG (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(ECF NO. 98)

ORDER DISMISSING DOE DEFENDANTS

FROM THIS ACTION, WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

Paul Jorgenson (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this action. This case now proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint 

(“SAC”), which was filed on July 12, 2018. (ECF No. 19). This case is proceeding on 

Plaintiff’s FTCA claim against the United States, his Eighth Amendment Bivens claim against 

the four unknown correctional officers (“the Doe Defendants”), his state tort claims for medical 

negligence against Defendants Haak, Randhawa, and Emanuel Medical Center, and his state 

tort claims for battery against Defendants Haak and Emanuel Medical Center. (ECF No. 21, p. 

2; ECF No. 95, p. 3). 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 November 21, 2019, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and 

recommendations, recommending that “the Doe Defendants be dismissed from this action, 

without prejudice, because of Plaintiff’s failure to provide the Marshal with accurate and 

Case 1:17-cv-00817-DAD-EPG Document 104 Filed 01/28/20 Page 1 of 2
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

sufficient information to effect service of the summons and complaint on the Doe Defendants 

within the time period prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).” (ECF No. 98, p. 

3).

The parties were provided an opportunity to file objections to the findings and 

recommendations. The deadline to file objections has passed and no objections have been 

filed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 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 proper 

analysis. 

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on November 

21, 2019, are ADOPTED IN FULL; and

2. The Doe Defendants are dismissed from this action, without prejudice, because of 

Plaintiff’s failure to provide the Marshal with accurate and sufficient information to 

effect service of the summons and complaint on the Doe Defendants within the time 

period prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2020 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-00817-DAD-EPG Document 104 Filed 01/28/20 Page 2 of 2