Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01519/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01519-12/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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BURCH MICHAEL BOWEN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MATTHEW CATE, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-1519 MCE AC P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

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

U.S.C. § 1983. On December 1, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss Counts I and III of 

the second amended complaint.1 ECF No. 54. Plaintiff was granted two extensions of his time to 

respond (ECF Nos. 56, 59), and on April 30, 2015, plaintiff was ordered to file an opposition or a 

statement of non-opposition to the pending motion within twenty-one days. ECF No. 60. In the 

same order, plaintiff was informed that failure to file an opposition would result in a 

recommendation that the claims would be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Id. The twenty-one-day period has now expired, and plaintiff 

has not responded to the court’s order. 

 

1

 Count I is a claim for prospective injunctive relief against defendant Beard in his official 

capacity. ECF No. 23 at 9-10. Count III is a state law claim under the California Torts Claim 

Act. Id. at 11-12. 

Case 2:12-cv-01519-MCE-AC Document 62 Filed 06/03/15 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

 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s claims for prospective injunctive relief and his state law claims be dismissed 

without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

2. Defendant Beard be dismissed from this action because no claims remain against him. 

3. Defendants Boparai, Carrick, Chapnick, Conanan, McAlpine, McElroy, Milliner, 

Shadday, and Swarthout be ordered to answer the remaining claims within thirty days from the 

date of the district judge’s review and adoption of the instant findings and recommendation. 

 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.” Any response to the 

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen 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: June 2, 2015 

Case 2:12-cv-01519-MCE-AC Document 62 Filed 06/03/15 Page 2 of 2