Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01844/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01844-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY WATTS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1844 MCE EFB P

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in a civil rights action. See 42

U.S.C. 1983. 

On September 6, 2006, the court dismissed plaintiff’s claims against defendant Jeanne

Woodford pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A with leave to amend. The court informed plaintiff he

could proceed against defendants Scott Kernan, R. Mandeville, J. Mayfield, M. Lea and D.

Botello by submitting materials for service within 20 days, but the court would construe his

election to so proceed as consent to dismissal of his claims against defendant Jeanne Woodford

without leave to amend. 

On September 19, 2006, plaintiff submitted materials for service of defendants Scott

Kernan, R. Mandeville, J. Mayfield, M. Lea and D. Botello.

////

Case 2:05-cv-01844-MCE -EFB Document 16 Filed 09/26/06 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

The court finds plaintiff has consented to dismissal of claims against defendant Jeanne

Woodford without leave to amend. 

Accordingly, it is hereby recommended that claims against defendant Jeanne Woodford

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, 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.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: September 25, 2006.

\f&r dsms some defs

Case 2:05-cv-01844-MCE -EFB Document 16 Filed 09/26/06 Page 2 of 2