Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00002/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00002-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROLAND DEWITT PUGH,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0002 FCD GGH P

vs.

DR. MERICLE,

Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. By Order, filed on October 30, 2006, plaintiff was granted thirty days to file an

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, using the form provided by the court with that

order. Although plaintiff had paid the fee in full at the outset of this case on January 3, 2005, he

had been unable to serve the sole defendant, Dr. Mericle, and in the October 30, 2006, Order,

plaintiff was given one final opportunity to attempt to serve this complaint by providing the 

requisite application to obtain in forma pauperis status so that, should he qualify, the court could

direct the U.S. Marshal to direct service upon defendant Mericle. Plaintiff was cautioned that

failure either to file the required application or to fail to qualify for in forma pauperis status upon

the court’s review of any such application, the court would recommend dismissal of this action,

as it appeared to be futile for plaintiff to be granted any further opportunity to attempt to serve

Case 2:05-cv-00002-FCD-GGH Document 18 Filed 04/06/07 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

this complaint. Plaintiff has not responded to the court’s October 30, 2006, Order, and the time

for doing so has long expired.

Therefore, for the reasons set forth herein and those presented in more detail in the

Order, filed on October 30, 2006, the court will recommend dismissal without prejudice of this

action.

 Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action 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, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. Such a 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: 4/6/07 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009 

pugh0002.fr

Case 2:05-cv-00002-FCD-GGH Document 18 Filed 04/06/07 Page 2 of 2