Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02578/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02578-2/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

TERRELL O’NEAL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-2578 MCE GGH P

vs.

SGT. VOONG, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 9, 2008, the court issued an order addressing the complaint. The

court found that the complaint stated a colorable claim for relief against defendants Voong,

Carrol, Foster, Olivio, Gant, Solorzano, Garrett and Ross. The court dismissed the claims

against defendants Schwartz, Crawford, Veal, Piazza, Cry and Grannis with thirty days to file an

amended complaint. Thirty days passed and plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. 

Accordingly, the court now recommends dismissal of defendants Schwartz, Crawford, Veal,

Piazza, Cry and Grannis for the reasons stated in the January 9, 2008, order. The court has

separately ordered service of the other defendants.

/////

/////

Case 2:07-cv-02578-MCE -GGH Document 8 Filed 03/18/08 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, for the reasons stated in the January 9, 2008, order IT IS HEREBY

RECOMMENDED that the claims against Schwartz, Crawford, Veal, Piazza, Cry and Grannis in

the complaint be dismissed. 

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. 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: 03/18/08 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

oneal2578.56

Case 2:07-cv-02578-MCE -GGH Document 8 Filed 03/18/08 Page 2 of 2