Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00026/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00026-7/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 Jeffrey P. Perrotte is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 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 302. On August 22, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and 

Recommendations which were served on the parties and contained notice that objections were to be 

filed within thirty days. After thirty days have passed and no objections were filed. 

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

///

///

///

JEFFREY P. PERROTTE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

STACEY JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00026-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, VACATING THE 

ENTRY OF DEFAULT AS TO THE 

DEFENDANTS 

[ECF Nos. 34, 47]

Case 1:15-cv-00026-NONE-SAB Document 51 Filed 09/29/16 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The entry of default as to Defendants Stacey Johnson and Jean LeFlore is VACATED;

2. Defendant Johnson and LeFlore’s motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficient 

service or process is DENIED;

3. Defendant Johnson and LeFlore’s motion to quash service of the summons and 

complaint is GRANTED; 

4. Plaintiff is granted additional time to properly serve Defendants in accordance with 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4 and, if applicable, California law; and

5. The matter is referred back to the assigned Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 29, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00026-NONE-SAB Document 51 Filed 09/29/16 Page 2 of 2