Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05077/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05077-12/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOUIS FRANCIS, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

H.L. BRYANT, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:04-cv-05077-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 41)

ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN

DEFENDANT

Louis Francis (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro

se and in forma pauperis, 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 72-302.

On June 7, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that recommended Defendant Bryant be dismissed

from this action. The Findings and Recommendations were served

on the parties and contained notice to the parties that any

objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed

within twenty (20) days. On June 19, 2006, Plaintiff filed

objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Case 1:04-cv-05077-LJO -SMS Document 64 Filed 09/27/06 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

Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, 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 analysis. In the

objections Plaintiff asked for the Court to await Plaintiff

receiving the other Defendants’ response to interrogatories

before dismissing Defendant Bryant. Plaintiff claimed that he

has requested information from the other Defendants about

Defendant Bryant’s current location. However, at this time, it

appears Plaintiff has received the responses he had sought. 

After receiving the responses, Plaintiff has provided no

additional information about Defendant Bryant’s location. The

interrogatories at issue in Plaintiffs’ pending motion to compel

do not ask about the location and/or whereabouts of Defendant

Bryant.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed June 7, 2006,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. Defendant H.L. Bryant is DISMISSED from this action for

failure to effect service.

This action is referred back to the assigned Magistrate

Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05077-LJO -SMS Document 64 Filed 09/27/06 Page 2 of 2