Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-02215/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-02215-0/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

KHALIFAH SAIF’ULLAH,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-98-2215 LKK KJM P

vs.

CASTLE, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On November 16, 2004, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On March 31,

2005, plaintiff was ordered to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the pending

motion within twenty days. In the same order, plaintiff was informed that failure to file an

opposition would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(b) for failure to adhere to court orders and the local rules of this court. The twenty day period

has now expired and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s March 31, 2005 order. 

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be

dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

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

Case 2:98-cv-02215-LKK -KJM Document 39 Filed 05/10/05 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

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.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. 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).

DATED: May 10, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

saif2215.46fr

Case 2:98-cv-02215-LKK -KJM Document 39 Filed 05/10/05 Page 2 of 2