Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01749/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01749-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TIMOTHY WATTS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

M. RUGGIERO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-1749 TLN AC P 

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 

 By order filed October 30, 2013, certain parties and claims were dismissed from plaintiff’s 

complaint and plaintiff was granted thirty days to amend. Plaintiff was informed of the 

deficiencies of the complaint, should he choose to seek to amend. Plaintiff was further instructed 

that if he chose not to amend his complaint, and elected instead to proceed on the claims that 

survived screening, he must within thirty days return materials for service on process on the 

defendants against whom he had stated cognizable claims. Plaintiff was provided with the 

requisite service forms. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to comply would result in a 

recommendation of dismissal of this action. The thirty day period has now long expired, and 

plaintiff has neither filed an amended complaint, nor submitted the forms for service of the 

original complaint. Nor has plaintiff otherwise responded to the court’s order. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 

prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

Case 2:13-cv-01749-TLN-AC Document 12 Filed 03/24/14 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 

27 

28 

2

 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-one days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 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: March 21, 2014 

Case 2:13-cv-01749-TLN-AC Document 12 Filed 03/24/14 Page 2 of 2