Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00157/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00157-2/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

JOWELL FINLEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV 06-0157 LKK GGH P

vs.

S. KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

On April 11, 2006, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with thirty days to

file an amended complaint. On April 2, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss this

action. The court was unaware of this motion when it filed the April 11, 2006, order. On April

14, 2006, plaintiff filed a request for “de novo” review of this case. 

On October 24, 2006, the court issued an order observing that plaintiff had still

not filed an amended complaint and that it was not clear how plaintiff intended to proceed with

the action. Accordingly, the court granted plaintiff thirty days to file either an amended

complaint or a request to voluntarily dismiss this action. The court warned plaintiff that if he did

not respond to this order, the court would recommend dismissal of this action. Thirty days

passed and plaintiff did not respond to the October 24, 2006, order.

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00157-LKK -GGH Document 11 Filed 12/22/06 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.

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, 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: 12/22/06 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

fin157.dis

Case 2:06-cv-00157-LKK -GGH Document 11 Filed 12/22/06 Page 2 of 2