Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02634/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02634-0/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

TROY MAGARRELL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2634 LKK DAD P

vs.

P. MANGIS, M.D., et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed November 21, 2005, plaintiff’s newly substituted counsel was

directed to file a notice concerning his intention to proceed on the pro se complaint filed

December 13, 2004, or to amend. Plaintiff was granted fifteen days for this purpose. No notice

or other response was filed. Defendant Roche has now filed an answer to the pro se complaint. 

Plaintiff may amend only by filing a motion for leave to amend, accompanied by a proposed

amended complaint. On the basis of plaintiff’s failure to respond to the November 21, 2005

order, the court will recommend that the two unserved defendants be dismissed pursuant to Rule

4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against

defendants P. Mangis, M.D., and Richard Sandham, M.D., be dismissed from this action without

prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Case 2:04-cv-02634-LKK-DAD Document 25 Filed 12/13/05 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

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

ten days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file and serve

written objections with the court. Failure to file objections within the specified time may, under

certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst,

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

DATED: December 12, 2005.

DAD:13

maga2634.ftr

Case 2:04-cv-02634-LKK-DAD Document 25 Filed 12/13/05 Page 2 of 2