Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00894/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00894-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 David Townsel brings the instant complaint in pro se and in forma pauperis

against defendants Richard Ciummo & Associates and Kevin R. Weimer for actions related to 

Plaintiff’s representation in a criminal matter. 

On October 9, 2014, the Court screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2), 

and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim with leave to amend. Doc. 4. The Court 

granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days of the date of service of that order. 

Plaintiff was advised that he was not required to file an amended complaint, but failure to do so 

would result in dismissal of the action. The order dismissing the complaint with leave to amend 

was filed and served on the same day. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the action be dismissed without prejudice 

and the case closed. 

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

Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-

DAVID TOWNSEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD CIUMMO & ASSOCIATES; 

KEVIN R. WEIMER,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-894---SMS 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Case 1:15-cv-00894-AWI-SMS Document 7 Filed 11/25/15 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

2

304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of 

California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written 

objections with the Court, serving a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The Court will then review 

the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that 

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 25, 2015 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00894-AWI-SMS Document 7 Filed 11/25/15 Page 2 of 2