Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00125/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00125-19/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

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

Plaintiff Mark Shane Thompson is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 

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

On January 27, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations

recommending that plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to substitute the identity of doe 

defendant number 1 as D. Johnson be granted, and doe defendant number 2 be dismissed, without 

prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (Doc. No. 59.) The findings and 

recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that objections were due within 

fourteen (14) days. (Id.) No objections were filed and the time to do so has now expired. 

///

///

MARK SHANE THOMPSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

A. GOMEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:18-cv-00125-NONE-SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION

(Doc. Nos. 58, 59)

Case 1:18-cv-00125-SAB Document 61 Filed 02/24/20 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

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, 

1. The January 27, 2020 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 59) are adopted in full; 

and

2. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to substitute the identity of doe defendant 

number 1 as D. Johnson is granted; 

3. Defendant D. Johnson is substituted in place of doe defendant number 1 as identified in 

the complaint (Doc. No. 1);

4. Defendant doe number 2 is dismissed from the action, without prejudice, for failure to 

identify and effectuate service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m); and 

5. The matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for initiation of service of process 

on defendant D. Johnson. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 24, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-00125-SAB Document 61 Filed 02/24/20 Page 2 of 2