Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00600/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00600-23/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

RODERICK WILLIAM LEAR,

Plaintiff,

v.

NAVARRO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:21-cv-00600-ADA-BAM (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING 

DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT PLATA,

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO 

SERVE

(ECF No. 79)

Plaintiff Roderick William Lear is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s 

first amended complaint against defendants Navarro, Neve, Allison, and Plata (formerly John Doe 

1) for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, arising from the incident on January 

4, 2020. 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 July 19, 2022, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending dismissal of defendant Plata from this action, without prejudice, for failure to 

serve process under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (ECF No. 79.) Those findings and 

recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto 

were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 4.) 

///

Case 1:21-cv-00600-KES-BAM Document 91 Filed 09/28/22 Page 1 of 3
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

Plaintiff timely filed objections on August 8, 2022. (ECF No. 81.) In his objections, 

Plaintiff states that he wishes only to clarify that he has not had 90 days to identify defendant

Plata, as he was not allowed to file a response to any of Defendants’ requests for extension of 

time to file discovery responses. The Court finds this argument unpersuasive. As noted in the 

findings and recommendations, while Defendants have received extensions of time to submit 

discovery responses to Plaintiff, Plaintiff was not prevented from serving discovery requests on 

Defendants. Nevertheless, Plaintiff has not identified any specific discovery requests he served 

on the remaining Defendants that would lead to information about defendant Plata or requested 

that the remaining Defendants be required to answer such a request.

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

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

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations are 

supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 19, 2022 (ECF No. 79), are adopted in 

full;

2. Defendant Plata is dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to serve process pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m);

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

Navarro, Neve, and Allison for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, 

arising from the incident on January 4, 2020; and

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:21-cv-00600-KES-BAM Document 91 Filed 09/28/22 Page 2 of 3
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

3

4. This action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent with 

this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2022 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00600-KES-BAM Document 91 Filed 09/28/22 Page 3 of 3