Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00474/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00474-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES STRAIN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0474 GEB GGH P

vs.

CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER

R. SANDHAM, et al., 

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed July 15, 2005, plaintiff’s claims against

defendants Barton and Garbutt were dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint within

thirty days. Plaintiff was informed that failure to file an amended complaint would result in a

recommendation that these defendants be dismissed from this action and that upon filing an

amended complaint or expiration of the time allowed therefor, the court would make further

orders for service of process upon some or all of the defendants. Plaintiff has not filed an

amended complaint and the time for doing so has expired. The court has found service upon

several defendants appropriate in a concurrently filed order. However, as to defendants Barton

and Garbutt, for the reasons set forth in the court’s order filed on July 15, 2005, the undersigned

Case 2:05-cv-00474-GEB-GGH Document 8 Filed 10/12/05 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

now recommends their dismissal from this action.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants Barton and

Garbutt be dismissed from this action. 

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, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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: 10/12/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

stra0474.fr

Case 2:05-cv-00474-GEB-GGH Document 8 Filed 10/12/05 Page 2 of 2