Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02919/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02919-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

DENNIS G. CLAIBORNE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2919 FCD EFB P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, , et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel proceeding in forma pauperis with a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 30, 2007, the court screened

plaintiff’s complaint, found that it did not state a cognizable claim against the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), and informed plaintiff that he could

either proceed with his action solely against defendants Harrison and Battey or file an amended

complaint in an attempt to state a claim also against the CDCR. On December 12, 2007, plaintiff

submitted the documents necessary for service against defendants Harrison and Battey. The

court construes plaintiff’s election to proceed solely against defendants Harrison and Battey as

consent to dismissal of all claims against the CDCR. 

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02919-FCD-EFB Document 9 Filed 02/01/08 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, it is hereby recommended that the CDCR be dismissed from this action

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: January 31, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02919-FCD-EFB Document 9 Filed 02/01/08 Page 2 of 2