Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00014/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00014-1/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Dennis Martel,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-0014 DFL PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

California Department

of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a state prisoner prosecuting this civil rights

action without counsel. 

April 28, 2005, the court dismissed plaintiff’s claims

against defendants Cal A. Terhune, Tom Carey and the Department

of Corrections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, with leave to

amend. The court informed plaintiff he could proceed against

defendants R. L. Andreasen, Tom Donahue, John J. Dan and J. W.

Moore by submitting materials for service within 15 days, but the 

court would construe his election so to proceed as consent to 

Case 2:04-cv-00014-ALA Document 10 Filed 06/10/05 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

dismissal of his claims against defendants Cal A. Terhune, Tom

Carey and the Department of Corrections without leave to amend. 

Plaintiff has submitted materials for service of defendants

R. L. Andreasen, Tom Donahue, John J. Dan and J. W. Moore. I

find plaintiff has consented to dismissal of claims against

defendants Cal A. Terhune, Tom Carey and the Department of

Corrections without leave to amend. 

Accordingly, the court hereby recommends that claims against

defendants Cal A. Terhune, Tom Carey and the Department of

Corrections be dismissed without prejudice. 

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be

filed within 20 days of service of these findings and

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: June 9, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00014-ALA Document 10 Filed 06/10/05 Page 2 of 2