Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05123/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05123-8/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOUIS RICHARD FRESQUEZ, 1:04-cv-05123-AWI-GSA-PC

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATION 

vs. (Doc. 46.)

MOEROYK, et al., ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(Doc. 45.)

Defendants.

_____________________________/

Louis Richard Fresquez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action. 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 December 4, 2009, findings and a recommendation were entered, recommending

that plaintiff's motion for default judgment be denied. (Doc. 46.) The Magistrate Judge found that

default judgment was not appropriate because Defendants had not yet been served. On January 13,

2010, Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendation. (Doc. 47.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ' 636 (b)(1)(B) 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 recommendation to be supported by the record and proper

analysis. In the objections, Plaintiff contends that he served Defendants by mailing a copy of his

complaint to the Director of Corrections. This does not constitute proper service pursuant to Rule 4

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff also contends that the court is assisting the CDC

and not attempting to find Defendants. The court ordered the United States Marshals to serve

Defendants, and the Process Receipt and Return indicates that the CDC Locator could not find

Defendants. Thus, the court finds that the Marshals have complied with the court’s service order. 

Case 1:04-cv-05123-AWI -GSA Document 48 Filed 02/17/10 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

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge on

December 4, 2009, are ADOPTED in full; 

2. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, filed on October 21, 2009, is

DENIED;

3. And this action is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 17, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05123-AWI -GSA Document 48 Filed 02/17/10 Page 2 of 2