Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00452/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00452-10/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

JAMES E. SMITH,

Plaintiff, CV F 06 0452 OWW WMW P 

vs. ORDER RE: FINDINGS & 

 RECOMMENDATIONS (#22, 23)

DIVISION OF MANKIND UNITED, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. The matter

was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

Rule 72-302. 

This action proceeds on the original complaint. Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody

of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at Kern Valley State Prison,

brings this civil rights action against various defendants. Plaintiff names the following

individual defendants: U.S. Bureau of Prisons; U.S. Internal Revenue Service; Director of Health

and Human Services; Warden Castro.

On November 21, 2006, an order was entered, dismissing the complaint for failure

to state a claim and directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. The court found Plaintiff’s

allegations to be vague, conclusory and directed to his underlying criminal conviction. Plaintiff

failed to file an amended complaint, and the court recommended dismissal of this action for

Case 1:06-cv-00452-OWW -WMW Document 34 Filed 11/07/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. 

The court also recommended that Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief be

denied. Plaintiff was granted an extension of time in which to file objections. On October 3,

2007, Plaintiff filed objections. Plaintiff’s objections, in their entirety, follow: “Plaintiff is a

state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 hereby move

this court objecting to the findings and recommendations.” Plaintiff has also filed motions for

injunctive and declaratory relief. These motions reference a criminal conviction suffered by

Plaintiff. The November 21, 2006, order dismissing the complaint advised Plaintiff of the

deficiencies in his complaint and provided him with an opportunity to file an amended

complaint. Plaintiff was cautioned that a failure to do so would result in a recommendation of

dismissal. The August 2, 2007, recommendation of dismissal clearly cautioned Plaintiff that his

failure to file objections would result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. Though

Plaintiff has filed numerous motions, he has not filed an amended complaint.

 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule

73-305, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and

proper analysis. 

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on August

2, 2007, are adopted in full; and

2. Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief are denied; and

3. This action is dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. 

The Clerk is directed to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 1:06-cv-00452-OWW -WMW Document 34 Filed 11/07/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Dated: November 7, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00452-OWW -WMW Document 34 Filed 11/07/07 Page 3 of 3