Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02090/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02090-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

CAROLYN CARLTON BROCKMEIER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2090 MCE EFB PS

vs.

SOLANO COUNTY SHERRIF’S

DEPT., et al., FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

 /

By order filed November 17, 2006, plaintiff’s equal protection and procedural due

process claims under the Fourteenth Amendment were dismissed and thirty days leave to file an

amended complaint was granted. That order warned plaintiff that failure to file an amended

complaint would result in a recommendation that those claims be dismissed with prejudice. The

thirty day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise

responded to the court’s order.

For the reasons set forth in the court’s November 17, 2006 order, IT IS HEREBY

RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s equal protection and procedural due process claims under the

Fourteenth Amendment be dismissed with prejudice. 

/////

////

Case 2:05-cv-02090-MCE -KJN Document 25 Filed 01/09/07 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

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 ten 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, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: January 8, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-02090-MCE -KJN Document 25 Filed 01/09/07 Page 2 of 2