Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00850/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00850-6/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

ROBERT HACKWORTH,

Plaintiff, 1: 06 CV 0850 AWI WMW PC

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

C/O RANGEL, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

By order filed August 1, 2008, the court issued an order dismissing the operative

complaint for failure to state a claim as to Plaintiff’s disciplinary hearing claim and directing

Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days. Plaintiff has not filed an amended

complaint. 

 In the August 1, 2008, order the court informed Plaintiff of the deficiencies in his

complaint, and dismissed the disciplinary hearing claim on the ground that Plaintiff had failed to

state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court specifically advised Plaintiff that if

he failed to file an amended complaint, the court would recommend dismissal of his claim

regarding his disciplinary process. Because Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, the

Case 1:06-cv-00850-BAM Document 19 Filed 11/06/08 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

court recommends dismissal of Plaintiff’s disciplinary hearing claim and dismissal of Defendant

Whitford. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448 (9 Cir. 1987) (prisoner must be given th

notice of deficiencies and opportunity to amend prior to dismissing for failure to state a claim).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant Whitford be

dismissed, and Plaintiff’s claim regarding his disciplinary hearing be dismissed. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). 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 waives all objections to the judge’s findings of fact. See

Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9 Cir. 1998). Failure to file objections within the th

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 6, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00850-BAM Document 19 Filed 11/06/08 Page 2 of 2