1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA ROBERTSON, No. 1:24-cv-00009 JLT BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 13 v. DEFENDANTS JONATHAN DOE, MIGUEL DOE, AND JANE DOE 14 JOHN LATORRACA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et al., (Doc. 34) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Joshua Robertson is a former pretrial detainee and current civil detainee proceeding pro se 18 and in forma pauperis in this this civil rights action pursuant to

. This action 19 proceeds on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against: (1) defendants Gutierrez, Sandoval, 20 Jonathan Doe, Miguel Doe, Reid, and Jane Doe for Due Process violation for conditions of 21 confinement related to the cell sanitation; (2) defendant Gutierrez for Due Process violation for 22 conditions of confinement related to removal of the mattress; and (3) defendants Merced County 23 and John Latorraca Correctional Facility for Monell liability. 24 On May 27, 2025, the magistrate judge ordered Plaintiff, within ninety (90) days, to file a 25 motion to substitute the identities of defendants Jonathan Doe, Miguel Doe, and Jane Doe with 26 enough information to locate them for service of process. (Doc. 26.) Plaintiff failed to comply 27 with the order. 28 On September 8, 2025, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendation that 1 | recommended defendants Jonathan Doe, Miguel Doe, and Jane Doe be dismissed from this 2 | action, without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (Doc. 34.) The 3 | Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that any objections 4 | were due within fourteen (14) days. Ud. at 3.) The Court also informed Plaintiff that “the failure 5 || to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘right to challenge the 6 | magistrate’s factual findings’ on appeal.” Ud., quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

, 839 7 | (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time in which to do so has passed. 8 According to

(b)(1)(c), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the 9 | case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the Findings and 10 || Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 11 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on September 8, 2025 (Doc. 34) are 12 ADOPTED. 13 2. Defendants Jonathan Doe, Miguel Doe, and Jane Doe are DISMISSED without 14 prejudice. 15 3. This action proceeds on Plaintiff's second amended complaint against: (1) 16 defendants Gutierrez, Sandoval, and Reid for Due Process violation for conditions 17 of confinement related to the cell sanitation; (2) defendant Gutierrez for Due 18 Process violation for conditions of confinement related to removal of the mattress; 19 and (3) defendants Merced County and John Latorraca Correctional Facility for 20 Monell liability. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 53 Dated: _ October 3, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28