Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03204/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03204-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

LEROY WALLACE, III,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-3204 FCD EFB P

vs.

FAIRFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT;

OFFICER, CAJ #1302; DETECTIVE FOK;

OFFICER JIMENEZ, 

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a country prisoner proceeding without counsel with a civil right action

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 22, 2010, the court found that the complaint

stated cognizable Fourth Amendment claims as to defendants Detective Fok and Jimenez, but

failed to state a claim as to defendant Fairfield Police Department and Officer, CAJ #1302. The

court gave plaintiff 30 days to submit materials for service of process on defendants Fok and

Jimenez, or, alternatively, to file an amended complaint in an attempt to state claims against

defendants Fairfield Police Department and Officer, CAJ #1302.

The times for acting have passed and plaintiff has not submitted the materials necessary

to serve process on defendants Fok and Jimenez, nor has he filed an amended complaint or

otherwise responded to the April 22, 2010 order.

Case 2:09-cv-03204-FCD-EFB Document 5 Filed 07/15/10 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 this action be dismissed without

prejudice. See 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 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.” 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: July 14, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-03204-FCD-EFB Document 5 Filed 07/15/10 Page 2 of 2