Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02045/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02045-2/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

LAMONT A. HOUZE, II

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2045 MCE GGH P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By an order filed September 28, 2006, plaintiff was ordered to file a complaint

that complies with the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil procedure, and the Local

Rules of Practice within thirty days and was cautioned that failure to do so would result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed. On November 1, 2006, Judge England affirmed

the September 28 order and directed plaintiff to file his complaint within twenty days. The th

twenty day period has now expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order and has

not filed a complaint.

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 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

Case 2:06-cv-02045-MCE -GGH Document 8 Filed 12/20/06 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

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.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are 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: 12/20/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:035

houz2045.ord

Case 2:06-cv-02045-MCE -GGH Document 8 Filed 12/20/06 Page 2 of 2