Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02735/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02735-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) 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

DAVID CARROLL STEPHENSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2735 LKK EFB PS

vs.

HARLEY G. LAPPIN, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

This action, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, was referred to this court under Local

Rule 72-302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

On April 30, 2007, plaintiff filed a document styled “petition in the nature of a motion for

default summary judgment.” In this document, plaintiff continues (wrongly) to maintain that the

named defendants in this action are in default. Based defendants’ purported default, plaintiff

argues that he is entitled to summary judgment and an order declaring that he is “being

unlawfully imprisoned by the defendants” and that defendants are in violation of the Racketeer

Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961, et seq. 

As explained in orders previously issued by the undersigned and by the district judge

assigned to this case, the defendants are not in default since plaintiff has not yet properly served

them as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Therefore, the Clerk has not entered default against

Case 2:06-cv-02735-LKK -EFB Document 43 Filed 08/01/07 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 defendants, nor has the court granted an entry of default judgment.

Because defendants have not yet been served and have made no appearance in this action,

the court recommends that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied as premature. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten (10)

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.” The parties are advised

that 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, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: July 31, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02735-LKK -EFB Document 43 Filed 08/01/07 Page 2 of 2