Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02991/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02991-2/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

WILLIAM TERRELL TUCKER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-2991 LKK EFB P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel suing for alleged civil rights violations. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed February 22, 2010, the court found that plaintiff had stated

sufficient charging allegations against defendant Nangalama and informed plaintiff he could

proceed against that defendant only or file an amended complaint that also states a claim against

defendants McAlpine and Lamb. The court also informed plaintiff that the court would consider

his decision to proceed only as to defendant Nangalama as consent to the dismissal of the other

named defendants. On February 26, 2010, plaintiff returned documents for service against

defendant Nangalama. 

////

////

Case 2:08-cv-02991-LKK -EFB Document 16 Filed 03/10/10 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against

defendants McAlpine and Lamb 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 fourteen 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: March 10, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-02991-LKK -EFB Document 16 Filed 03/10/10 Page 2 of 2