Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02249/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02249-1/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

ROLANDO MIRANDA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2249 MCE GGH P

vs.

JAMES TILTON, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. On October 2, 2007, the court found that plaintiff’s complaint stated the following

colorable claims for relief: 1) defendants Primm and Jacobson used excessive force; 2) defendant

Hogan performed a physically intrusive search; 3) defendant Guillen knew about the intrusive

search and told plaintiff not to worry about it; 4) defendants Wong and Huser retaliated against

him. The court dismissed the remaining claims with thirty days to file an amended complaint. 

Thirty days passed and plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. 

The court has separately ordered service of the colorable claims. For the reasons

discussed in the October 2, 2007, order, the court now recommends dismissal of the claims found

not colorable.

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02249-MCE -GGH Document 7 Filed 12/13/07 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that all claims in the complaint

but for the four colorable claims set forth above be dismissed for the reasons discussed in the

October 2, 2007, order. 

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: 12/13/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

mir2249.56

Case 2:06-cv-02249-MCE -GGH Document 7 Filed 12/13/07 Page 2 of 2