Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02503/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02503-1/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

 On October 13, 2006, plaintiff filed a letter in which plaintiff asserts that he has no

objection to the dismissal of this action. Plaintiff also asserts that he commenced another action

in this court (CIV S-06-1928 LKK KJM P) on August 28, 2006 that is similar to this one. 

Plaintiff asks that as an alternative to dismissal, his two actions be consolidated. However, with

respect to this action, there is nothing to consolidate because there is no operative complaint on

file. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD C. BACHMAN, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2503 DFL KJM P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed September 28, 2006, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and thirty

days leave to file an amended complaint was granted. The thirty day period has now expired,

and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 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 2:05-cv-02503-RRB -KJM Document 13 Filed 11/06/06 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, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The 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: November 3, 2006.

1

bach2503.fta

Case 2:05-cv-02503-RRB -KJM Document 13 Filed 11/06/06 Page 2 of 2