Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00707/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00707-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD ADAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0707 GEB EFB P

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in a civil rights action. See 42

U.S.C. 1983. 

On May 15, 2007, the court dismissed plaintiff’s claims against defendants Summersett,

Willey, Ballm, Malfi and Walker pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, with leave to amend. The

court informed plaintiff he could proceed against defendants Borges, O’Brian, and Grannis by

submitting materials for service within 20 days, but the court would construe his election so to

proceed as consent to dismissal of his claims against defendants Summersett, Willey, Ballm,

Malfi and Walker without leave to amend. 

On July 9, 2007, plaintiff submitted materials for service of defendants Borges, O’Brian,

and Grannis. The court finds plaintiff has consented to dismissal of claims against defendants

Summersett, Willey, Ballm, Malfi and Walker without leave to amend. 

Case 2:07-cv-00707-GEB-EFB Document 15 Filed 08/15/07 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 claims against defendants Summersett,

Willey, Ballm, Malfi and Walker 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 twenty 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: August 14, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00707-GEB-EFB Document 15 Filed 08/15/07 Page 2 of 2