# (PC) Brown v. Ram

> District Court, E.D. California · June 30, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10020198

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** June 30, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10020198

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 DEXTER BROWN, No. 2: 20-cv-0154 JAM KJN P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 K. RAM, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief
18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20 On April 29, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which
21 were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings
22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days.
23 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and
24 recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served.1 Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f),

25 1 On May 8, 2020, the April 29, 2020 findings and recommendations were returned as
26 undeliverable, marked “deceased.” Moreover, the inmate locator website for the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) no longer lists plaintiff as housed in
27 CDCR custody. In light of plaintiff’s apparent death, it is impossible for him to prosecute this
action. The undersigned has considered whether to appoint counsel to represent plaintiff’s estate,
28 but finds there are no exceptional circumstances for doing so in this case. See 28 U.S.C. §
1 service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.
2 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
3 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
4 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper
5 analysis.
6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
7 1. The findings and recommendations filed April 29, 2020 are adopted in full;
8 2. This action is dismissed.
9
DATED: June 29, 2020
10
/s/ John A. Mendez____________ _____
11
12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
13

14

15

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900
28 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990); Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10020198. Public record. Not legal advice.