Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01383/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01383-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES T. DAVIS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1383 FCD EFB P

vs.

D. CALVIN, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in a civil rights action. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. 

On October 3, 2007, the court dismissed plaintiff’s claims against defendant Felker

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, with leave to amend. The court informed plaintiff he could

proceed against defendants Calvin, Brewer, Rath, Lingerfelt, Amero, Hougland, McBride,

McDonald, James, and Roche by submitting materials for service within 20 days, but the court

would construe his election so to proceed as consent to dismissal of his claims against defendant

Felker without leave to amend. 

On October 29, 2007, plaintiff submitted materials for service of defendants Calvin,

Brewer, Rath, Lingerfelt, Amero, Hougland, McBride, McDonald, James, and Roche. The court 

/////

Case 2:07-cv-01383-FCD-EFB Document 21 Filed 12/27/07 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

2

finds plaintiff has consented to dismissal of claims against defendant Felker without leave to

amend. 

Accordingly, it is hereby recommended that claims against defendant Felker be dismissed

without prejudice. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: December 27, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01383-FCD-EFB Document 21 Filed 12/27/07 Page 2 of 2